The Three-Dimensional Analytical and Governance Logic of China’s Digital Divide Bridging Policy

Abstract

In the digital era, digital technology enables political, economic and social fields. However, while the digital divide is pervasive due to the influence of population, geography, the economy and other factors, blindly pushing digital change often leads to the further expansion of the risks of social inequality. This paper constructed a three-dimensional analytical framework of digital gap-bridging policies from the perspective of policy objectives, policy tools and policy effectiveness. Based on this framework, this paper used the content analysis method to conduct a quantitative analysis of 81 digital gap-bridging policies published in China and selected the PMC index model for policy evaluation. The result shows that the policy goal of bridging the digital divide in China mainly focuses on bridging the material access gap and the technology gap, while inadequate attention was paid to the attitude gap and the use gap; in terms of policy tools, there exists an unbalanced situation regarding supply tools, environment and demand tools, with the first one being emphasized more than the others; there is still policy “fatigue” regarding weak feedback and less incentive, though the internal consistency level of the policy is good and the policy structure is reasonable. Therefore, we should optimize policy objectives and policy tools to bridge the digital divide. We should not only consider whether there is “or not” on the equipment and whether there is “or not” on the technology, but also consider whether we want to “or not” on the attitude and feel “or not” on the use; we should not only “give” unilaterally through supply-oriented policies but also “cooperate” with each other through demand-oriented and environment-oriented tools to release the maximum potential of digital empowerment.

1. Introduction

In the age of the digital economy, digital knowledge and information become the key factors of production. With the acceleration of global digitization, global digital governance, which consists of digital technology innovation and regulation, effective supply of global digital infrastructure and the Internet, has become a major challenge for global governance. Under the background of continuous digitalization and intellectualization of traditional industries and deep integration of digital technology and real economy, if there is no reasonable digital governance mechanism, it will be difficult for the digital vulnerable groups to realize the normal use of digital technology and the population of this group will further increase with the rapid development of the digital economy, which will inevitably cause new social inequality. In turn, it will affect the sustainable development of the digital economy. Therefore, in the current environment, we must pay attention to the bridging of the digital divide and try to bridge the existing digital divide by means of policy guarantees. In the process of digital bridging, the reasonableness of policy formulation, the appropriateness of policy tools and the effectiveness of policies are directly related to the scientific nature and adaptability of a national policy system for digital gap bridging. Therefore, by evaluating China’s policy system for bridging the digital divide, this paper aims to point out the current problems in China’s policy system for bridging the digital divide, which will help Chinese policy makers improve the existing policies, build a reasonable digital governance mechanism and reduce the phenomenon of digital inequality as far as possible. I hope our article can provide theoretical support for the sustainable development of the digital economy.

As the leading force of the world’s scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, digital technology is increasingly being integrated into the whole process of economic and social development, profoundly changing the modes of production, lifestyle and social governance [1]. Scholars are keen to study the empowering, driving and facilitating roles of big data, predicting that the promise of its positive effects can be fulfilled due to the autonomy of technology. However, the large-scale promotion of digital technology has not fully achieved the expected positive effects. For example, the ability to purchase tickets online has increased the convenience for most passengers and scalpers have almost disappeared but the cumbersome booking process and limited payment methods have led to some migrant workers entering cities without enjoying such convenient benefits [2]. “Internet + government services” reshapes the traditional relationship-based society, providing benefits in terms of the fairness of buying tickets, but good wine needs no bush and many groups in western and rural areas are unable to enjoy these benefits brought by e-government due to the lack of access to the Internet [3]. During the COVID 19 pandemic, a wide variety of digital applications, such as health codes, itinerary codes and detection codes, were induced for the elderly as “digital remnants” [4]. Although the establishment of online education, such as MOOCs, has enabled digitally-disadvantaged groups to gain more access to high-quality educational resources, advantaged groups have benefited more and this has objectively widened the education gap [5]. It can be seen that an imbalance in terms of access to and use of internet technology still exists due to the presence of multidimensional factors, such as economic, geographical and group differences, making digital technology’s empowerment effect heterogeneous. The digital divide problem has increasingly attracted the attention of academia and government departments, because this gap has not gradually narrowed in pace with economic and social development. Instead, it is growing and may further entrench disparities among social classes.

To solve these problems, relevant state departments must persist in their efforts to introduce policies aimed at the consolidation of digital infrastructure. As of June 2022, the number of internet users in China was 1.051 billion and the Internet’s penetration rate reached 74.4%, including an internet penetration rate in rural areas of 58.8% and the scale of online medical users reached 300 million [6]. However, the practical problems of China’s digital divide exist not only in terms of an insufficient supply but also as an issue of unequal enjoyment [7]. The efforts made towards digital technological progress have failed to avoid digitally vulnerable groups becoming “technical refugees” due to the lack of digital skills. In addition, this phenomenon has even caused digitally advantaged groups to become “resource plunderers” to the detriment of digitally vulnerable groups [8]. The slogan of having equal access to public services has been questioned. In the context of information intelligence, there is no doubt that the universal application of digital technology will lead to improvements in the overall welfare of human society; therefore, it is urgent to bridge this digital divide in order to achieve the maximum potential of digital empowerment and to prevent the gap between the rich and poor caused by digital inequality from widening.

Scholars have proposed many ways to bridge the digital divide, such as by improving the level of social and economic development [9], providing age-appropriate products [10], relaxing the scope of government services [11] and innovating the supply of the government [12]. These will undoubtedly need support in the form of government policies. Policy-making is thought to help by developing policies that support disadvantaged groups in gaining better skills to benefit from the adoption of ICT or by providing infrastructure to reduce socioeconomic imbalances [13,14,15]. However, policymakers must have effective mechanisms to identify and target the specific segments of society that require policies in order to appropriately address the digital divide [16,17]. There are three levels of such requirements. At the first level, policy-making needs to identify specific social strata within the digital divide, that is, question whether the policy goal is comprehensive. At the second level, policy-making must use different mechanisms to solve the problem of digital inequality among different social strata, that is, determining whether the choice of policy tools is reasonable. At the third level, the formulated policy must be able to effectively achieve the policy objectives, that is, determine whether the policy is effective. Clear policy objectives, rational policy tools and excellent policy systems can effectively promote the bridging of the digital divide. By reviewing the Chinese government’s efforts to solve the problem of the negative effects of the digital divide in terms of policy-making, it can be seen that by the end of 2022, there were up to 81 texts bridging the digital divide issued by the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, the State Council, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and other departments at the national level of policy development. Therefore, based on an analysis of policy texts, we sought to answer the following questions: in order to bridge the digital divide policy, what kind of policy tools are used by the Chinese government? Do the policy objectives cover all aspects of the digital divide? Are the policy tools properly deployed? What policy instruments are used to achieve different policy objectives? Do the policies work? This study provides a theoretical reference for the formulation of future related policies.

2. Review and Framework

2.1. Review

Digital inequality has become a growing concern in modern society and it is influenced by factors such as economy [11,18], age [19,20], gender [21,22], education [23], geography [24], race [25] and environment [26]. The digital divide exists between countries [27] and domestically [28], a gap which has not yet been closed [29]. The concept of the digital divide can be traced back to a 1999 report by the US government [30,31] that focused on the differences in term of access among different social classes [32,33]. With the rapid development of information and communication technology, the definition of the digital divide is also constantly being enriched. In 2001, the OECD [34] classified the digital divide into stages: a first-level digital divide stage, with “access” to internet technology as the main difference [35]; a second-level digital divide stage, with “whether there is a need to learn how to use” internet technology as the main difference [31,36]; and a third-level digital divide stage, with the difference in the transformation of internet skills into benefits as the main difference [12,14,30,37]; however, this ignores the motivations and attitudes of the public in terms of digital use [38,39]. In the further development of digital technology, a sense of relative deprivation appears due to the fact of a gap in access to material and technology among digitally vulnerable groups, which reduces the positive participation of individuals in a digital society and an attitude gap reappears [8,40]. The attitudinal divide includes not only the technical panic regarding the complexity of the Internet but also a rational attitude of rejection due to the fact of poor connectivity [41]. The persistence of the digital divide ultimately leads to social inequalities [42]. On the one hand, this inequality is manifested in the inequality of opportunities for residents with better digital skills to fully enjoy the dividends of employment and education brought by the digital age [43,44]. On the other hand, it is manifested in the slow development of digitalization in developing countries; the gap in terms of rural residents’ income [45]; the structure of consumption and the quality of basic education and cities [46,47,48,49]; the gap in wealth of among families [50]; and the inequality of public services [51,52].

Domestic and foreign scholars have proposed many measures to bridge different types of digital divides, such as bridging the urban–rural digital divide through an online poverty alleviation action plan [53]; building a community with a shared future in cyberspace to help bridge the global digital divide [54]; helping enterprises cross the digital divide by transformation and upgrading through platformization [55]; bridging the digital divide between urban and rural teachers through the support of external environments and the drive of internal motivation [56]; maintaining offline service channels and traditional services over the long term so that digitally vulnerable groups, such as low-income groups and the elderly, can compensate for the lack of access to and use of digital equipment [52]; providing infrastructure and enhanced skills training for marginalized socioeconomic groups [11]; and by providing barrier-free products in line with international technical standards for visually impaired groups [25]. However, the widening trend of the digital divide still deserves our attention. Appropriate policy objectives, reasonable policy tools and effective policy measures can inhibit the expansion of the digital divide to a certain extent, help reduce the “relative deprivation” of digitally vulnerable groups in a digital society and bolster digital inclusion [57]. In summary, scholars have explored the connotation, impact and bridging measures of the digital divide from different perspectives and they have provided many policy suggestions for bridging the digital divide. However, there are still only few discussions on digital bridging policies. A systematic analysis of the objectives, tools, effectiveness and evolutionary trends of such policies to bridge the digital divide is thus a worthy in-depth study.

2.2. Analytical Framework

Policy objectives are the desired effects of policy formulation and the ultimate goal of policy implementation. Policy instruments are the technologies and instruments used to achieve policy objectives and different types of policy instruments work in different ways. The rational selection and combination of policy tools can help the government better achieve policy objectives [58,59]. The degree of cohesion in the policy effectiveness is equally important for the outcome of the policy implementation and the extent to which the implementation of a specific policy instrument can achieve the desired effect or achieve the desired goal depends, to some extent, on the effectiveness of the policy [60,61].

At present, we are in a digital era where multiple gaps exist simultaneously. Policy design should improve the matching degree between policy tools and policy objectives to ensure policy effectiveness and steadily promote the bridging of the digital gap. This paper took policy tools as dimension X, policy objectives as dimension Y and policy effectiveness as dimension Z. Combined with the existing problems related to China’s digital divide, this paper defines the contents that should be included under each dimension and constructs an evaluation system for digital divide-bridging policy, namely, the “policy objective–policy instrument–policy effectiveness” analytical framework, as shown in Figure 1.

2.2.1. X-Dimension: Policy Tools

Based on the different purposes of a quantitative policy analysis, scholars at home and abroad hold a variety of perspectives on the classification of policy tools. Combined with Rothwell’s ideas [62], this paper categorized digital divide-bridging policy tools into supply-oriented policy tools, demand-oriented policy tools and environmental policy tools according to their mode of function and defined them as the X dimension in the three-dimensional analytical framework.

Supply-oriented policy tools refer to the government’s introduction of corresponding policies from the supply side to achieve the goal of bridging the digital divide and directly promoting the bridging of the digital divide by providing relevant supply factors, such as internet access, products and equipment, public services and capital investment, required for bridging the digital divide. According to the different supply factors required to bridge the digital divide, this paper divided supply-oriented policy tools into eight basic policy tools: product support, public services, infrastructure construction, education and training, scientific and technological support, talent training, demonstration projects and financial support.

Demand-oriented policy tools refer to the government’s introduction of corresponding policies from the demand side to achieve the goal of bridging the digital divide and promoting the broader and deeper demand for digital services by fully mobilizing government, enterprises, public and other subjects and taking measures such as expanding the digital consumer market, reducing consumption costs and driving the benign development of bridging the digital divide with demand. The specific demand-oriented policy tools for bridging the digital divide include seven basic policy tools: enrichment of channels, public–private cooperation, cost reduction, exchange and cooperation, residents’ needs, market cultivation and construction.

Environmental policy tools refer to the bridge between the supply side and the demand side, providing an appropriate policy environment for bridging the digital divide. Specifically, it is divided into nine basic policy tools: standard design, regulatory control, preferential rates, financial support, supervision and assessment, target planning, policy support, organizational construction and strategic measures.

Table 1 provides a detailed introduction to the classification of policy tools and their specific meanings. We conducted a reasonable evaluation of the use of policy tools to answer the first question: Is China’s allocation of policy tools for bridging the digital divide reasonable?

2.2.2. Y-Dimension: Policy Objectives

To fully understand digital inequality, we used resource appropriation theory (Van Dijk, 2005) to describe people’s acceptance of a new thing as a continuous process that can be divided into four stages: mental access, material access, skills access and usage access [31]. In most of the literature on digital divides, scholars’ discussions are often limited to the access gap, technology gap and use gap but ignore the existence of a spiritual gap. As Van Dijk mentioned, it is believed that the spiritual divide does not exist or is a temporary phenomenon. Once the access gap and technology gap are closed, the spiritual divide will disappear [63,64]. However, it is undeniable that due to people’s fear of a new technology or community influence, there will be mental anxiety before realizing the material divide, which is also an unavoidable problem in the process of bridging the digital divide in China. Based on Van Dijk’s ideas, this paper divided the policy goal of bridging the digital divide into the attitude gap, material access gap, skills gap and usage gap according to its stage in the process and it is defined as the Y dimension in the three-dimensional analytical framework. Bridging the attitudinal divide is a prerequisite for successfully bridging other types of divides and good attitudes are the driving force for potential users to adopt, acquire, learn and use these technologies, especially computers and internet-connected and intelligent devices. The policy goal is to first solve the difference in people’s attitudes towards digital technology and digital services, that is, the attitude gap [65]. Positive attitudes will increase the possibility of group acceptance of digital transformation and negative attitudes will reduce the possibility of group acceptance of digital transformation [66]. The challenge in the second phase is how to provide all people with equal access to digital access and media. The policy objectives need to address the discrepancy between physical access, represented by internet connectivity and the equipment needed to access digital services, i.e., the physical access gap. After gaining the motivation to use digital media and possessing physical authority over them, one must learn to use the hardware and software of digital applications [31]. Because of disparities in resource endowments, the policy objective at this stage should be to bridge the gap in the digital skills divide [67]. Finally, the ultimate purpose of digital promotion is for people’s sense of acquisition and use of digital services, but motivation acquisition, material acquisition and skill acquisition are only necessary conditions to achieve the ultimate goal due to the difference in needs, occasions, obligations and time. There are differences in the frequency of people’s eventual participation in digital activities and we define the policy goal at this stage as the usage gap [68].

We conducted a reasonable evaluation of the formulation of policy objectives to answer the second question: can the policy objectives of bridging China’s digital divide effectively solve the current practical problems regarding China’s digital divide?

2.2.3. Z-Dimension: Policy Effectiveness

Policy effectiveness is mainly reflected in the content effectiveness and implementation effectiveness of policy documents [69]. An evaluation of policy effectiveness can influence the formulation, implementation and feedback adjustment of policies in the next stage. This paper constructed a PMC index model for the analysis of the effectiveness of policies to bridge the digital divide, evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of the various policies through the PMC index and the degree of the concaveness of the surface and intuitively analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of the various policies’ strengths and weaknesses [70].

We conducted a reasonable evaluation of the policy effectiveness to answer the third question in this paper: is China’s digital divide bridging policy adequate, sustainable and efficient?

3. Data and Methods

3.1. Samples and Data Sources

In order to adapt to changes in a new development stage and promote overall human development and the shared enjoyment of digital dividends, the central government of China has formulated various plans, outlines, programs and guidelines for bridging the digital divide. For example, in order to bridge the overall digital divide, the central government has promulgated the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Informatization and The State Council’s Guiding Opinions on Actively Promoting the “Internet Plus” initiative. In order to bridge the digital divide between the elderly and the young, the central government has issued the Circular on Extensive Education and Training for the Elderly in the Use of Intelligent Technologies and the Special Action Plan for Aging and Barrier-Free Transformation of Internet Applications. In order to bridge the digital divide between urban and rural areas, the central government has formulated such policies as the Arrangement for the Pilot Work of Information Access to Villages and Households in 2015 and the 14th Five-Year Plan for Promoting Agricultural and Rural Modernization. At the same time, local governments at all levels have responded by formulating specific implementation plans suitable for bridging the digital divide in each region. Together, the above policy texts constitute the policy system for bridging the digital divide in China.

China is a unitary centralized state, with the central government as the highest center of power. Theoretically speaking, local governments are the executive organs of the central government and the extension of the central government in local areas. Although local governments formulate policies to bridge the digital divide caused by alienation when on business trips according to their own local development, they still implement, in general, the decisions of the central government. Moreover, the digital divide policies formulated by local governments are not authoritative and representative. They are often only specific implementation plans of certain policies promulgated by the central government. In order to ensure that the selected policy documents are formal, authoritative and representative, the authors selected policy documents related to bridging the digital divide issued by departments of the central government. Using the keywords “digital divide”, “information accessibility” and “digital inequality”, the authors searched the online portals of the State Council and various central ministries and commissions and compensated for gaps and omissions through the magic weapon of peking university. A total of 135 policy documents related to the digital divide released by the central government and various ministries and commissions were collected (the latest retrieval time was 15 November, 2022). Of these, 81 effective policy documents were selected as samples for the analysis of China’s digital divide bridging policies after a review and response and other policy documents that lacked policy tools or focused to closely on single policy tools were excluded (see Table 2).

3.2. Text Analysis Method

Policy text analysis, as a relatively pure text quantitative analysis paradigm, aims to sum up some trends or characteristics through word frequency statistics of keywords in the original policy text. By extracting the keywords in the policy text, the policy signals to be released are identified [71,72]. In this paper, 81 policy documents on bridging the digital divide released by the central government from 2006 to 2022 were taken as samples for analysis and a text analysis was conducted to encode, classify and count the frequency of the policy texts’ contents. The specific encoding process was as follows: the content of the policy document was coded one by one using the “policy document name number–chapter number–clause number” method. Depending on the specific content of the policy document code, it was incorporated into the policy tools and the policy objective analytical framework and frequency statistics. Based on the content of the policy document, a value of 1 was assigned to the variables contained in the text content and 0 to the variables not included. In order to ensure the reliability of the data analysis, the coding work and the division of the work were carried out by two groups of members at the same time and the content of the objection was agreed upon, recoded and assigned. In particular, each clause was coded into the X policy tool and the Y policy target dimension, but there was no one-to-one correspondence.

3.3. PMC Index Model

The policy modeling consistency (PMC) index model, proposed by Estrada et al. [55], is an important method for evaluating the effectiveness of a policy’s content and enables policy makers and researchers to determine the level of consistency of any policy as well as the advantages and disadvantages regarding certain aspects. Based on the “Omnia Mobilis” hypothesis, this model is based on the premise that no relevant variables should be ignored in the process of policy evaluation. Therefore, all of a policy’s variables were placed at the same level without manual intervention on the quantity and importance of the policy variables. The 0–1 assignment method was adopted to set the variables covered by the policy as 1 and the variables not covered as 0. Compared with other policy evaluation models, the PMC index model avoids supervisor tendencies and ambiguity. It is a quantitative model for the detailed evaluation of a single policy. The word frequency statistics function of Nvivo was applied to the 81 policy texts. The function words and common words that were unrelated to this study were removed and a word frequency graph was drawn. The larger the area of the words, the higher the frequency (Table 3).

The index calculation of the PMC was divided into five steps. In the first step, 9 first-level variables and 39 second-level variables that were constructed in this study were put into the multi-input–output table. The second step was to assign 0–1 values to the secondary variables X_jt according to the policy text. In the third step, the value of each second-level variable X_jt was substituted into Formula (3) to calculate the value of the corresponding first-level variable X_jt. In the fourth step, the calculation results of each first-level variable X_j were substituted into Formula (4) to calculate the PMC index of each policy document. The fifth step was to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy documents according to the PMC index. The evaluation index is shown in Table 4 and the PMC surface map and spider map were drawn according to Formula (5) to compare the policy texts at different levels.

(1)$\mathrm{X}~\mathrm{N}\left[0,1\right]$

(2)$\mathrm{X}=\left\{\mathrm{XR}:\left[0,1\right]\right\}$

(3)${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{j}}={\displaystyle \sum }_{\mathrm{t}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}\frac{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{jt}}}{\mathrm{T}\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{jt}}\right)} \mathrm{j}=1,2,3,4,5\dots ,9$

(4)$\mathrm{PMC}={{\displaystyle \sum }}^{}{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{j}}$

(5)$\mathrm{PMC}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}{\mathrm{X}}_1& {\mathrm{X}}_2& {\mathrm{X}}_3\\ {\mathrm{X}}_4& {\mathrm{X}}_5& {\mathrm{X}}_6\\ {\mathrm{X}}_7& {\mathrm{X}}_8& {\mathrm{X}}_9\end{array}\right)$

In the formula, X represents the variable of the PMC policy effectiveness evaluation system and X_j represents the first-level variables, including policy nature (X₁), policy prescription (X₂), policy level (X₃), institutional system (X₄), policy receptor (X₅), policy domain (X₆), target (X₇), incentive constraint (X₈) and policy evaluation (X₉). X_jt represents the second-level indicator under each first-level indicator and T(X_jt) represents the number of second-level indicators under the JTH first-level indicator.

4. Analysis and Results

4.1. Distribution and Temporal Context of the Policy Types

As Figure 2 shows, the number of digital divide-bridging policy papers issued increased in waves, with four peaks in 2006, 2013, 2016 and 2021. In 2006, the Fifth Plenary Session of the 16th CPC Central Committee proposed vigorously developing the construction of informatization and there are differences in the levels of the application of information technology and network penetration in different regions, fields and groups in China. In addition, there was a trend of expansion and a digital divide problem. As an important factor affecting the coordinated development of informatization, the State Council and various ministries and commissions proposed accelerating the bridging of the digital gap between urban and rural areas regarding the aspects of rural construction, information construction, talent construction and industry construction. After the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping provided important instructions on poverty-alleviation work, accelerated the pace of building a moderately prosperous society in poverty-stricken areas in a holistic manner and concentrated on formulating various information poverty-alleviation policies in 2013 to eliminate the gap caused by the digital divide. The year 2016 was first year of the 13th Five-Year Plan, which is an important period of strategic opportunity for informatization to lead comprehensive innovation and the construction of information infrastructure in poor areas and rural areas in China is still relative lagging behind. The provision of information services for special groups, such as left-behind children and people with disabilities, was weak and a number of policies were issued to control the risk of widening the digital divide. The year 2021 was the beginning of a new journey to build a modern socialist country in a holistic manner. China’s digital economy shifted to a new stage of deepening application, standardized development and inclusive sharing. A number of initiatives also helped to bridge the digital divide at an accelerated pace [73].

From the perspective of the policy type, for the 81 policy documents, departmental rules accounted for 70%; administrative regulations accounted for 29%; NPC working documents accounted for 1%; and there were no formal legal policy documents. It can be seen that the Chinese government has not paid enough attention to the elimination of the digital divide [74] and the promulgation of policies is mainly driven by administrative regulations and a number of departmental rules. Legal texts are scarce and policy effectiveness is insufficient. Overall, the number of policies is generally on the rise, but the rapid development of the digital economy has led to the acceleration of the expansion of the digital divide in social and economic activities and the original policies cannot effectively bridge the current digital divide [75]. Effective policy tools and powerful rules and regulations are urgently needed to deal with the digital divide in this new situation.

4.2. Analysis of the Policy Instruments

The classification and coding results show (Table 5) that supply-oriented policy tools accounted for 52.45%, environmental policy tools accounted for 30.19% and demand-oriented policy tools accounted for 17.37%. In the process of narrowing the digital divide, the choice of policy tools by the government had obvious tendencies. The use of supply-oriented policy tools is frequent and the use of demand-oriented and environment-oriented policy tools is relatively low. Such imbalances may slow the closing of the digital divide and increase the risk that the digital divide will continue to widen. Specifically, “public services” [76], “infrastructure construction” [77] and “education and training”, which belong to supply-oriented policy tools, ranked first, second and fourth respectively in the frequency of the use of the policy tools, accounting for 12.12%, 10. 72% and 8.16% respectively, as well as accounting for one-third of all policy tools, resulting in an absolute dominant position. The government intends to increase the supply of public services, infrastructure and education and training to bridge the gap between materials and the technological level of groups. Driving the bridging of the digital divide, the most commonly used environmental policy tools are “strategic measures” and “target planning”. Through increasing publicity and guidance and other strategic measures to create a sound policy environment, the central government formulates targeted planning to influence local governments to introduce corresponding measures and accelerate the bridging of the digital divide. The use of demand-based policy tools is relatively balanced, accounting for approximately 2–3% and the government bridges the digital divide by adopting measures such as price subsidies and nurturing consumer markets to stimulate the demand for digital services in remote areas and among vulnerable groups. In general, the frequency of the use of the three policy tools is unbalanced, among which the use of supply-oriented policy tools is high and the use of demand-oriented policy tools is low, which is overly dependent on supply-oriented policy tools. Policy systems tend to be more effective for material and technological divide policy objectives, but they are less effective in targeting the demand and actual use of digital services for groups [76,77].

From the perspective of the historical evolutionary path of the policy tools (Figure 3), the number of reference points represents the frequency of the emergence of such policy tools. Supply-oriented policy tools have almost always held an absolute advantage, with rapid growth during each policy peak period. Demand-oriented policy tools have been in a low-frequency stage. Although there was a slight increase, the relative quantity was still insufficient and environmental policy tools have remained at a low level, with a significant increase in 2020–2021.

4.3. Analysis of Policy Objectives

On the whole (Figure 4), the policy objectives mainly focus on the material access gap and the technology gap, accounting for 38.64% and 31.73%, respectively, bridging the attitude gap. The number of policy texts that use the gap is small. From the perspective of annual distribution, before 2011, it mainly focused on the attitude gap and the material access gap, but the number of policy inputs was small. Since 2012, policy objectives have mainly focused on the material access gap and the government has bridged the digital divide caused by physical access between regions by increasing internet access and promoting public services. Since 2020, the policy goal has clearly shifted to the technology divide and the use gap. The technology gap over the past three years accounted for 73% of all reference points and the use gap over the past three years accounted for 72% of all reference points. This means that after the large-scale popularization of the Internet, computers and smartphones, the government’s main efforts to bridge the digital divide focused on bridging the gap among groups in digital technology and digital use. At this stage, there are still some people who have negative motivations regarding the use of digital products or digital services, which leads to a growing gap in technological learning and use. The government should improve the enthusiasm of groups to use them through demand-pulling to ensure the inclusiveness of digital services.

4.4. Analysis of the Policy Effectiveness

Guided by the effective bridging of the digital divide, according to the evaluation system of the effectiveness of the digital divide policy, the PMC index model was used to calculate the PMC index and its depression index of each sample policy. The depression index represents the degree of difference between the policy to be evaluated and the “perfect policy” [69]. The larger the PMC index, the richer the content and effectiveness of the digital divide bridging policy. Overall, 81 policies were rated above the acceptable level, of which 35 samples’ policy effectiveness was evaluated as excellent, 30 samples’ policy effectiveness was evaluated as good and 16 samples’ policy effectiveness was evaluated as acceptable. The overall PMC index obtained by the weighted average of all policy rating indices is 6.39, indicating that the digital divide bridges the policy design process and the issuing institutions considered all dimensions comprehensively and had good internal policy consistency.

Nine sample policy PMC evaluation indices are displayed in Table 6. Policy #1 is the implementation method for the information professional and technical personnel knowledge update project (the 653 Project) formulated by the General Office of the Ministry of Personnel and the General Office of the Ministry of Information Industry in 2006. In order to further strengthen the construction of information professional and technical personnel and bridge the digital gap of information professional and technical personnel in the central and western regions, the policy content is mainly the specific implementation steps of the 653 Project and the institutional guarantee, policy incentives, etc., are not involved, so the institutional system (X4) indicator is only 0.25, the incentive constraint (X8) indicator is only 0.2, the PMC index is 3.61 and the policy rating is acceptable. Policy #47 is the notice issued by the General Office of the State Council in 2020 on the implementation plan to effectively solve the difficulties of the elderly in using intelligent technology. The policy content mainly involves the technical gap of the elderly, the policy time is short and the policy role is relatively single, mainly through optimizing public services and providing appropriate aging products and other aspects to bridge the technological gap. The PMC index is 5.96, the policy rating is good. Policy #69 is the “14th Five-Year Plan” for the development of the digital economy promulgated by the State Council in 2021, which involves all levels and aspects of digital services, puts forward a coordinated guarantee for bridging the digital divide and clearly puts forward multiple collaborative measures for the government, market, relevant departments and enterprises, with clear goals. The PMC index is 7.39 and the policy rating is excellent.

Furthermore, the weighted average of each variable in the policy text of each grade was determined and a surface plot and spider-web diagram of the PMC of each grade were drawn. Through the spider chart, the score of each level of policy can be visually analyzed among different variables. Figure 5 shows an excellent grade policy curved chart. The PMC index is 7.22, the PMC of the curved plot is smooth, indicating that the scores of each variable of the policy are more balanced and the policy design content is more comprehensive, which is more scientific and reasonable than other policy structures. Most of the excellent grade policies are issued by the State Council or jointly issued by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council [78] and the documents are wide-ranging and have a high level of effectiveness. The policies involve a wide range of subjects, clear action objects and appropriate use of policy tools. The policy receptors (X5) and action objects (X7) are close to index 1. However, the policy timeliness is relatively lacking and some of the policies are five-year plans. The policy formulation is mainly concentrated over five years and long-term planning should be paid attention to in the next policy-formulation process. Figure 6 shows that the PMC index of the good grade policy is 6.11, the PMC surface chart is slightly undulating and the scores of each variable are not much different, as most of the hierarchical policies are jointly issued by ministries and commissions. There is overall coordination among various subjects and the policy content involves multiple fields. However, there is a lack of a clear assessment mechanism for the policy objectives and the incentives are lacking. Figure 7 shows a surface plot of the acceptable grade policy. The PMC index is 3.61 and the curved chart fluctuates more obviously, indicating that the internal consistency of the policy needs to be optimized. This part of the policy is mainly a special policy and the policy objectives are highly targeted, but the scope of the target is limited. The use of policy tools is relatively singular and the demand-oriented policy tools are relatively lacking, as most of the policies are issued by a single department. In addition, policy timeliness is short, of which the incentive constraint (X8) is only 0.2. This shows that these policies lack incentive measures and constraint mechanisms and although the policies are promulgated, it is difficult to implement them in the process of policy implementation. The institutional system (X4) is only 0.25, indicating that the coordination mechanism of various departments in the implementation of the policy is lacking and there is not enough of an organizational guarantee. From the overall perspective of the sample policies (Figure 8), the index of each variable is concentrated between 0.5 and 0.8. The score is more balanced, the performance of the institutional system and policy evaluation is better and the incentive constraint is relatively lacking, and therefore when formulating a digital divide bridge policy in the future, the incentive measures and assessment constraint mechanism of the policy should be strengthened to ensure that the policy is effective [57].

4.5. Objective Tool Two-Dimensional Analysis

From the cross-results of the instrument target (Figure 9), the use of policy tools in each policy target presents a similar structural proportion; that is, the supply-oriented policy tools account for a relatively high proportion, the environment-oriented and demand-oriented policy tools account for a relatively low number and the allocation ratio of the policy tools is unbalanced. For the policy goal of the attitude gap, the same number of three types of policy tools are used to bridge the attitude gap from three approaches: supply-driven, demand-driven and environmental impact. As for the policy objective of the material access gap, supply-oriented policy tools are mainly used, while environment-oriented policy tools are supplemented. Demand-oriented policy tools are partly used and the gap in material access among groups and regions is closed through infrastructure construction, public service promotion, information technology support and other tools. For the policy goal of the skills gap, the frequency of the use of supply-oriented policy tools is more than half, mainly through education and training to improve the digital technology level of the population by optimizing the product design and service mode to help vulnerable groups and the elderly solve difficulties in using digital technology [79]. In view of the policy goal of the usage gap, supply-oriented policy tools and environment-oriented policy tools are mainly used. The frequency of the use of demand-oriented policy tools relatively increased and digital universality is promoted through the aging transformation of products, smart community construction and digital consumer market cultivation so that the public can feel that they have access to equal services, thereby improving their perceived access, use and happiness [80]. Different policy objectives show a tendency towards certain policy tools, but the realization of policy objectives cannot be separated from the reasonable allocation of a variety of policy tools and the single dependence on a certain policy tool often reduces the degree of completion of policy objectives [81].

4.6. Tool Effectiveness and Goal Effectiveness Analysis

The 81 policy texts were classified according to the scores calculated by the PMC index model, which were defined as excellent, good and acceptable and the average number of reference points for the policy tools and policy objectives in different categories was counted, as shown in Table 7, with a policy effect of “excellent”. In the policy samples, the policy tools are used more frequently and the coverage of the policy objectives is high. Almost all four policy objectives are involved in each policy text. Among the 30 policy samples with “good” policy effectiveness, the use efficiency of the supply-oriented policy tools is high and the use efficiency of the demand-oriented policy tools is low, with an average reference point of 1.44; that is, there are only 1–2 demand-oriented reference points in a policy text. The policy objectives focus mainly on material access and the skills gap, with less involvement in the attitude and usage gaps. Among the 16 policy samples with an “acceptable” policy effectiveness, supply-oriented policy tools are mainly used and the average frequency of the use of the demand-oriented and environment-oriented policy tools is 0.3 and 0.72; that is, these two policy tools were not used in most policy texts. The constraint incentive (X8) and policy evaluation (X9) scores are low and the number of policy objectives in the three types of policy objectives is low, namely, attitude gap, technology gap and use gap, which in turn affect the policy field (X5) and the role object (X6), which affects the PMC index of the policy text.

5. Conclusions

This paper constructed a three-dimensional analytical framework composed of policy tools, policy objectives and policy effectiveness. Eighty-one digital divide bridging policies issued by the central government of China were selected for analysis of the policy texts and the PMC index model was used to evaluate the policy effectiveness of the policy texts. The study found that there is a large gap in the efficiency of the three policy tools of China’s digital divide-bridging policy, the effective coordination of which has not yet been realized. The policy objectives essentially cover the specific manifestations of the current digital divide and the policy effectiveness is generally high, but there is still much room for improvement. To be specific, as shown in Figure 10, the digital divide bridging policy experienced a period of “flattening development–rapid growth”. With the advancement of digitalization, policy goals have changed from bridging the gap in material access to bridging the gap in technology and use and changes in policy objectives should drive different policy tools. However, as can be seen from Figure 10, the use of policy tools is not optimal and the high frequency of supply-oriented tools is used throughout, reflecting the government. In terms of a strong guarantee of access to information and service supply, demand-oriented policy tools have been hovering in the low range and the role of environmental-oriented policy tools has gradually become prominent after 2019, which is easily caused in a supply-driven manner. The lack of the endogenous power of multiple subjects leads to the further expansion of the digital divide under the long-term overflow of supply-oriented tools and the long-term asymmetry between supply and demand. From the perspective of policy effectiveness, the PMC index value of the sample policy is relatively high and the PMC surface chart is relatively smooth, indicating that the internal consistency of the policy is better and the policy structure is reasonable. However, from the perspective of individual indicators, some policies pay more attention to planning, suggestions, guidance, etc. The policy timeliness is short, policy incentives are not in place and the constraint mechanism still has room for improvement.

6. Recommendations

6.1. Policy Recommendations

In view of the overall situation of China’s digital divide-bridging policy, the authors suggest strengthening the policy design from three aspects. The first involves the comprehensiveness of the policy objectives. The maintenance of a high degree of matching between the goal of bridging the digital divide and the current digital development context should be continued; the cultivation of the digital consumer market by all entities should be promoted; the digital interests of group members should be stimulated; technology and service bridging should be driven by attitudes; and the elimination of the digital divide should be accelerated. The second involves the equalization of the policy tools. Following the endogenous law of the digital divide, the use of the three major types of tools should be coordinated to change the imbalance to not only continue to maintain the use of existing supply-oriented policy tools but also to gradually improve the use of environmental- and demand-oriented tools and an efficient combination of the policy tools. The third is the legalization of the policy formulation. Bridging the digital divide is important support for the promotion of common prosperity. The binding force and enforcement intensity of the existing policies are low. The national top-level strategic concept should be strengthened, the policies upgraded to law, adherence to laws should be achieved and the satisfaction of the masses with digital use should be effectively improved. At the same time, on the basis of the existing policy system, all functional government departments should analyze in depth the actual situation and characteristics of the current digital divide in various fields. Policies should be formulated from a dynamic perspective and extensive exchanges and cooperation should be conducted.

6.2. Limitation

This paper was based on a quantitative analysis of China’s digital divide policy. China’s digital divide-bridging policy system is not yet sound; therefore, we put forward the above policy suggestions, but they are not fully applicable to all countries. For example, in terms of the comprehensive policy objectives and balanced policy tools, the policy formulation of some countries has tended to be perfect, so there is no need for optimization. However, in terms of the rationality and adaptability of the policy formulation, the policy system of each country should be based on the practical practice of digital development. Therefore, it is necessary to systematically comb the policy system and evaluate its policy effectiveness.

6.3. Prospect

First, China’s digital divide policy system is constantly improving. Therefore, we will regularly include newly-promulgated government policy texts into the evaluation system, because it is highly necessary to evaluate the scientific and rational nature of the policy system. Second, we are committed to further improving the variable selection of the PMC index model. However, the selection of existing variables is supported by classical references and we believe that it is still unable to fully guarantee that the PMC evaluation index in this paper covered all policy characteristics of the digital divide bridging policy system. Therefore, in the next step, we will further deepen our understanding of the policy system, add more valuable evaluation indicators and more accurately evaluate the current policy system of the bridging of the digital divide in China. We also hope that our work can gain more attention from scholars.

Author Contributions

M.Q., J.L. and B.L., designed the study and wrote the paper; M.Q. and B.L. supervised the writing of the paper; B.Z. and B.L. collected and collated the materials and undertook the field data collection. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative interests that represent a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted work.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. 3D framework of digital divide bridging policy.

Figure 2. Annual distribution and type statistics of the policies.

Figure 3. Annual distribution of the reference points of the policy instruments.

Figure 4. Distribution of the reference points for the policy objectives.

Figure 5. Curved surface with the policy effectiveness as “excellent”.

Figure 6. Curved surface with the policy effectiveness as “good”.

Figure 7. Curved surface with the policy effectiveness as “acceptable”.

Figure 8. Spider map of the policy effectiveness levels.

Figure 9. Two-dimensional analysis of the policy objectives and policy tools.

Figure 10. Evolutionary trend of the digital divide policies.

Table 1

Classification and interpretation of the policy instruments.

Types	Secondary Policy Instrument	Specific Meaning
Supply-oriented policy tools	Product support	Design and update products suitable for vulnerable groups to meet the needs of customers.
	Public services	Improve public services in medical, health, education, culture and elderly care.
	Infrastructure construction	Provide basic security through internet access and building infrastructure.
	Education and training	Provide intellectual and technical support through skills training, education and teaching.
	Scientific and technological support	Utilize key technologies such as artificial intelligence, 5G, Internet of Things, big data, edge computing and blockchain.
	Talent training	Intensify the training of practitioners, improve the quality of volunteers and strengthen the construction of digital talent.
	Demonstration projects	Through pilot and demonstration projects, digital development is promoted on a point-by-point basis.
	Financial support	Provide financial support through financial input or expanding the scale of the budget.
Environment-oriented policy tools	Standard design	Strengthen the formulation of standards for the Internet of Things, big data, e-government and information services for digital development.
	Regulatory control	Create an orderly development environment by improving laws and regulations and strengthening supervision.
	Preferential rates	Tax breaks and other preferential policies are given to participants in bridging the digital divide.
	Financial support	Foster a sound financial environment through financing, loans and deregulation.
	Supervision and assessment	Establish an evaluation mechanism to ensure the implementation of policies.
	Target planning	Have clear goals, responsibilities and tasks to bridge the digital divide.
	Policy support	Strengthen the supervision and regulation of behaviors by formulating policies, rules and regulations.
	Organizational construction	Strengthen the function of an organization, coordination and leadership and fulfill work responsibilities.
	Strategic measures	In addition to the abovementioned categories, these include other measures to bridge the digital divide.
Demand-oriented policy tools	Enrichment of channels	Develop digital service channels for digital demand.
	Public–private cooperation	Ensure the role of private enterprises and private capital to effectively promote the development of digital equality.
	Cost reduction	Improve the mechanism for compensating universal telecommunications services, lower internet charges for poor households and bolster digital demand.
	Exchange and cooperation	Encourage exchanges and cooperation, draw on relevant mature practices and bridge the digital divide.
	Residents’ needs	Support the people’s demand for a better digital life.
	Market cultivation	Stimulate social digital demand through market shaping, consumption promotion and e-commerce platform cultivation.
	Construction	Build a digital China, integrate urban and rural development and provide equal access to public services.

Table 2

Overview of the digital divide bridging policies.

Number	Title	Time	Publishing Department	Administrative Level
1	Measures for the Implementation of the Knowledge Renewal Project for Information Professionals (“Project 653”)	2006	Personnel Department; Ministry of information Industry	Departmental regulations
2	Notice on the issuance of the National Strategy for Informatization Development 2006–2020	2006	General Office of the CPC Central Committee; General Office of The State Council of China	Administrative regulations
3	Key Points of Communication Industry Fashion Construction in 2006	2006	Ministry of information Industry	Departmental regulations
4	New Rural Construction Technology to Promote Action	2006	Ministry of Science and Technology	Departmental regulations
5	Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Agricultural Informatization	2006	Ministry of Agriculture	Departmental regulations
6	Some Suggestions on the In-Depth Implementation of the Spark Plan	2007	Ministry of Science and Technology	Departmental regulations
7	National General Framework of Agricultural and Rural Informatization Construction (2007–2015)	2007	Ministry of Agriculture	Departmental regulations
...
47	A Circular on the Implementation Plan to Effectively Solve the Elderly’s Difficulties in Using Intelligent Technology	2020	General Office of The State Council	Administrative regulations
48	A Circular on Launching the “Wisdom to Help the Elderly” Campaign	2020	National Working Committee on Aging	Departmental regulations
49	A Circular on Further Promoting the “Internet Plus Medical and Health” and ”Five Ones” Service Actions	2020	The National Health Commission; National Healthcare Security Administration; NATCM	Departmental regulations
50	Announcement on Matters Related to Standardizing the Receipt and Payment of RMB Cash	2020	People’s Bank of China	Departmental regulations
...
76	Guidelines on Strengthening the Construction of Digital Government	2022	The State Council	Administrative regulations
77	The 14th Five-Year Plan for Cultural Development	2022	General Office of the CPC Central Committee; General Office of The State Council	Administrative regulations
78	A Research Report on the Implementation of the National Strategy for Actively Responding to Population Aging and Promoting High-Quality Development of Undertakings for the Elderly	2022	Social Development Committee of the NPC	Working papers of the NPC
79	Report on the Progress in Strengthening and Advancing the Work on Aging	2022	The State Council	Administrative regulations
80	Notice on Further conducted the “Excellent Teacher Plan” for Normal University Student Training	2022	Ministry of Education	Departmental regulations
81	Notice on the Issuance of the 14th Five-Year Plan for Informatization of National Health	2022	National Health Commission	Departmental regulations

Table 3

PMC policy effectiveness evaluation system.

First-Order Variable	Second-Order Variable	Second-Order Variable Evaluation
Nature of policy (X1)	Forecast (X1-1)	Is it predictive? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Suggestion (X1-2)	Does it provide comments or suggestions? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Feedback (X1-3)	Is feedback reflected? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Supervise (X1-4)	Does it embody supervision? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Description (X1-5)	Is it descriptive? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Guide (X1-6)	Does it reflect the orientation? Yes is 1, no is 0
Policy prescription(X2)	Long-term (X2-1)	Is the effect more than 5 years? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Metaphase (X2-2)	Is the effect 3 to 5 years? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Short-term (X2-3)	Is the effect less than 3 years? Yes is 1, no is 0
Policy level (X3)	Laws and regulations (X3-1)	Does the force conform to legal and regulatory standards? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Administrative regulations (X3-2)	Does the force comply with industry regulations and standards? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Departmental regulations (X3-3)	Does the force meet the department’s regulatory standards? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Specification document (X3-4)	Does the force meet the specification document? Yes is 1, no is 0
Institutional system (X4)	Overall planning and coordination (X4-1)	Does it promote overall coordination among various bodies? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Platform construction (X4-2)	Does it involve digital platform construction content? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Function localization (X4-3)	Does it clarify the function orientation and classification guidance of each subject? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Team building (X4-4)	Does it involve building a digital service team? Yes is 1, no is 0
Policy receptor (X5)	Government (X5-1)	Does the role level involve the government? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Enterprises and public institutions (X5-2)	Does the function level involve enterprise units or public institutions? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Group organization (X5-3)	Does the role level involve nonprofit organizations? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Social public (X5-4)	Does the role level involve the public? Yes is 1, no is 0
Policy area (X6)	Medical treatment (X6-1)	Is the policy related to the medical field? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Education (X6-2)	Is the policy related to the field of education? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Social security (X6-3)	Doe the policy involve the field of social security? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Elderly care (X6-4)	Does the policy involve the field of elderly care? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Traffic (X6-5)	Is the policy related to the field of transportation? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Culture (X6-6)	Is the policy related to the cultural field? Yes is 1, no is 0
Action object (X7)	Age (X7-1)	Does the target involve an age difference? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Urban and rural areas (X7-2)	Does it involve the gap between urban and rural areas? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Body function (X7-3)	Does the object of action involve a functional gap? Yes is 1, no is 0
Incentive and constraint (X8)	Financial input (X8-1)	Are financial incentives included? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Financial support (X8-2)	Is financial support included? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Scientific and technological support (X8-3)	Does it include technology, information and product support? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Regulatory control (X8-4)	Is regulatory control included? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Supervision and assessment (X8-5)	Does it include supervision and assessment? Yes is 1, no is 0
Policy evaluation (X9)	Well-grounded (X9-1)	Is the policy basis sufficient? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Clear goal (X9-2)	Is the policy objectives clear? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Detailed planning (X9-3)	Is the goal planning detailed and accurate? Yes is 1, no is 0
	Program science (X9-4)	Are the measures scientific? Yes is 1, no is 0

Table 4

Policy effectiveness rating table.

Score	0–2.99	3–4.99	5–6.99	7–9
Evaluation	poor	acceptable	good	excellent

Table 5

Classification codes of the policy instruments.

Types of Policy Instruments	Secondary Policy Instrument	File	Reference Point	Percentage	Class Percentage
Supply-oriented policy tools	Product support	30	62	7.23%	52.45%
	Public services	39	104	12.12%
	Infrastructure construction	45	92	10.72%
	Education and training	36	70	8.16%
	Scientific and technological support	37	62	7.23%
	Talent training	7	7	0.82%
	Demonstration projects	28	38	4.43%
	Financial support	11	15	1.75%
Environment-oriented policy tools	Standard design	8	11	1.28%	30.19%
	Regulatory control	9	13	1.52%
	Preferential rates	2	2	0.23%
	Financial support	23	29	3.38%
	Supervision and assessment	5	5	0.58%
	Target planning	25	46	5.36%
	Policy support	17	23	2.68%
	Organizational construction	29	41	4.78%
	Strategic measures	45	89	10.37%
Demand-oriented policy tools	Enrichment of channels	17	22	2.56%	17.37%
	Public–private cooperation	18	23	2.68%
	Cost reduction	14	18	2.10%
	Exchange and cooperation	19	27	3.15%
	Residents’ needs	11	14	1.63%
	Market cultivation	12	25	2.91%
	Construction	12	20	2.33%

Table 6

PMC index evaluation of several of the policy texts.

	Policy Number	1	2	45	46	47	69	76	78	79
First-Order Variable
Nature of policy (X1)		0.67	0.67	0.67	0.83	0.67	0.83	0.83	0.67	0.67
Policy prescription(X2)		0.33	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.33	0.67	1	0.67	0.67
Policy level (X3)		0.5	0.5	0.5	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75
Institutional system (X4)		0.25	1	1	0.5	0.75	1	1	0.75	1
Policy receptor (X5)		0.5	0.5	1	1	0.5	1	0.75	1	1
Policy area (X6)		0.33	0.83	0.83	1	0.83	0.67	0.5	0.83	0.83
Action object (X7)		0.33	1	1	1	0.33	0.67	0.67	1	1
Incentive and constraint (X8)		0.2	0.2	0.6	0.4	0.8	0.8	0.6	0.6	0.6
Policy evaluation (X9)		0.5	0.5	1	1	1	1	0.75	0.75	0.75
PMC index		3.61	5.53	7.27	7.15	5.96	7.39	6.85	7.02	7.27
Sag index		5.39	3.47	1.73	1.85	3.04	1.61	2.15	1.98	1.73
Effectiveness evaluation		acceptable	good	excellent	excellent	good	excellent	good	excellent	excellent

Table 7

The average number of reference points of the policy instruments and targets under different policy effectiveness levels.

Policy Effectiveness	Policy Tool			Policy Goal
	Supply Oriented	Demand Oriented	Environment Oriented	Attitude	Material	Skills	Usage
Excellent	7.30	2.88	4.25	1.40	4.78	3.83	2.88
Good	5.11	1.44	3.29	1.20	3.85	3.75	1.33
Acceptable	2.58	0.3	0.72	0.63	2.96	1.5	1.07

References

1. Xi, J. Congratulatory Letter to World Internet Conference Wuzhen Summit. Available online: http://www.gov.cn (accessed on 21 November 2022).

2. Tong, X.; Wang, L. An empirical study on college students’ online ticket Purchasing: Taking 12306 System of Ministry of Transport as an example. E-Government; 2013; pp. 100-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16582/j.cnki.dzzw.2013.12.013]

3. Liang, M. Singapore’s experience and inspiration in promoting “Internet plus government Services”. E-Government; 2017; 11, pp. 48-54.

4. Yang, B.; Jin, D. The digital divide of the aged: Expression form, motivation exploration and bridging path. Acad. J. Zhongzhou; 2021; 12, pp. 74-80.

5. Xue, E.Y.; Fu, W.Q.; Li, J. On the fairness of online education development. China Educ. Technol.; 2021; 3, pp. 1-7+70.

6. China Internet Network Information Center. The 50th Statistical Report on Internet Development in China. 2022; Available online: http://www.cnnic.net.cn/ (accessed on 21 November 2022).

7. World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. 2016; Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016 (accessed on 21 November 2022).

8. Kong, W.; Wu, J.; Huang, S. Digital divide and relative deprivation: Micro evidence and mechanisms of influence. E-Government; 2021; 1, pp. 110-124.

9. Wen, J.; Hussain, H.; Jiang, R.; Waheed, J. Overcoming the Digital Divide with ICT Diffusion: Multivariate and Spatial Analysis at China’s Provincial Level. Sage Open; 2023; 13, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21582440231159323]

10. Li, L.; Jin, G.Z.; Guo, Y.L.; Jing, R. Internet access, support, usage divides, and depressive symptoms among older adults in China: A nationally representative cross-sectional study. J Affect. Disord.; 2023; 323, pp. 514-523. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.001]

11. Qadikolaei, M.R.; Zali, N.; Soltani, A. Spatiotemporal investigation of the digital divide, the case study of Iranian Provinces. Env. Dev. Sustain.; 2022; pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02738-0]

12. Vicente, M.R. ICT for healthy and active aging: The elderly as first and last movers. Telecommun. Policy; 2022; 46, 102262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102262]

13. Vassilakopoulou, P.; Hustad, E. Bridging Digital Divides: A Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research. Inf. Syst. Front.; 2021; pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3]

14. Wei, K.; Teo, H.; Chan, H.C.; Tan, B.C.Y. Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide. Inf. Syst. Res.; 2011; 22, pp. 170-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273]

15. Burtch, G.; Chan, J. Investigating the Relationship between Medical Crowdfunding and Personal Bankruptcy in the United States: Evidence of a Digital Divide. MIS Quart; 2019; 43, 237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/14569]

16. Hsieh, J.; Rai, A.; Keil, M. Addressing Digital Inequality for the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Through Government Initiatives: Forms of Capital that Affect ICT Utilization. Inf. Syst. Res.; 2011; 22, pp. 233-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0256]

17. Chang, S.I.; Yen, D.C.; Chang, I.C.; Chou, J.-C. Study of the digital divide evaluation model for government agencies—A Taiwanese local government’s perspective. Inf. Syst. Res.; 2012; 14, pp. 693-709. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-011-9297-x]

18. Dewan, S.; Ganley, D.; Kraemer, K.L. Complementarities in the Diffusion of Personal Computers and the Internet: Implications for the Global Digital Divide. Inf. Syst. Res.; 2010; 21, pp. 925-940. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0219]

19. Niehaves, B.; Plattfaut, R. Internet adoption by the elderly: Employing is technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. Eur. Inf. Syst. Res.; 2014; 23, pp. 708-726. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.19]

20. Ono, H.; Zavodny, M. Digital inequality: A five country comparison using microdata. Soc. Sci. Res.; 2007; 36, pp. 1135-1155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.09.001]

21. Mumporeze, N.; Prieler, M. Gender digital divide in Rwanda: A qualitative analysis of socioeconomic factors. Telemat. Inf.; 2017; 34, pp. 1285-1293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.014]

22. Picatoste, X.; Mesquita, A.; Gonzalez-Laxe, F. Gender wage gap, quality of earnings and gender digital divide in the European context. Empirica; 2023; 50, pp. 301-321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10663-022-09555-8]

23. Vicente, M.R.; Lopez, A.J. Assessing the regional digital divide across the European Union-27. Telecommun. Policy; 2011; 35, pp. 220-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2010.12.013]

24. Billon, M.; Ezcurra, R.; Lera-Lopez, F. The spatial distribution of the internet in the European Union: Does geographical proximity matter?. Eur. Plan Stud.; 2008; 16, pp. 119-142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310701748009]

25. Jauhiainen, J.S.; Eyvazlu, D.; Junnila, J.; Virnes, A. Digital divides, the Internet and social media uses among Afghans in Iran. Technol. Soc.; 2022; 70, 102057. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102057]

26. Zillien, N.; Hargittai, E. Digital Distinction: Status-Specific Types of Internet Usage. Soc. Sci. Quart; 2009; 90, pp. 274-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x]

27. Robison, K.K.; Crenshaw, E.M. Reevaluating the Global Digital Divide: Socio-Demographic and Conflict Barriers to the Internet Revolution. Sociol. Inq.; 2010; 80, pp. 34-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00315.x]

28. Robinson, L.; Cotten, S.R.; Ono, H.; Quan-Haase, A.; Mesch, G.; Chen, W.; Schulz, J.; Hale, T.M.; Stern, M.J. Digital inequalities and why they matter. Inf. Commun. Soc; 2015; 18, pp. 569-582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532]

29. Abdelfattah, B.M.; Bagchi, K.; Udo, G.; Kirs, P. Understanding the Internet Digital Divide: An Exploratory Multi-Nation Individual-Level Analysis. AMCIS Proc.; 2010; 542.Available online: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/542 (accessed on 22 November 2022).

30. Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. 1999; Available online: http://spamcon.org/library/NTIA/FTTN.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2022).

31. Van Dijk, J. The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2005.

32. Bonfadelli, H. The Internet and Knowledge Gaps: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. Eur. J. Commun.; 2002; 17, pp. 65-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323102017001607]

33. Bucy, E.P. Social Access to the Internet. Harv. Int. J. Press/Politics; 2000; 5, pp. 50-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1081180X00005001005]

34. OECD. Understanding the Digital Divide. 2001; Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/understanding-the-digital-divide_236405667766 (accessed on 22 November 2022).

35. Dewan, S.; Frederick, J.R. The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Directions. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst.; 2005; 6, pp. 298-336.

36. Wenz, A.; Keusch, F. The second-level smartphone divide: A typology of smartphone use based on frequency of use, skills, and types of activities. Mob. Media Commun.; 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20501579221140761]

37. Gunkel, D.J. Second Thoughts: Toward a Critique of the Digital Divide. New Media Soc.; 2003; 5, pp. 499-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146144480354003]

38. van Deursen, A.J.A.M.; van der Zeeuw, A.; de Boer, P.; Jansen, G.; van Rompay, T. Digital inequalities in the Internet of Things: Differences in attitudes, material access, skills, and usage. Inf. Commun. Soc.; 2021; 24, pp. 258-276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1646777]

39. Morrison, B.A.; Nicholson, J.; Wood, B.; Briggs, P. Life after lockdown: The experiences of older adults in a contactless digital world. Front. Psychol.; 2023; 13, 8363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1100521]

40. Dutton, W.H.; Reisdorf, B.C. Cultural divides and digital inequalities: Attitudes shaping Internet and social media divides. Inf. Commun. Soc.; 2018; 22, pp. 18-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1353640]

41. Gonzales, A. The contemporary US digital divide: From initial access to technology maintenance. Inf. Commun. Soc.; 2016; 19, pp. 234-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1050438]

42. Barzilai-Nahon, K. Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing Measurements for Digital Divide/s. Inf. Soc.; 2006; 22, pp. 269-278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240600903953]

43. Lorraine, M.M. 2009 Presidential Address: Repositioning Politics in Education’s Circle of Knowledge. Educ. Res.; 2009; 38, pp. 417-427.

44. Chen, M.; Zhou, Y. New progress in digital inequality research. Econ. Perspect.; 2022; 4, pp. 123-139.

45. Lal, B.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.; Frost, D.; Chirara, S. Understanding ‘Development’ from the Perspective of E-Government, Digital Divide and ICT4D Literature: A Research Agenda. Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 413-418.

46. Hua, Z.; Ling, W.; Xu, N. Digital Divide or Digital Dividend?—The impact of digital technology use on the income of low-income rural households. J. China Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci.; 2022; 39, pp. 133-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13240/j.cnki.caujsse.2022.05.012]

47. Li, W.; Zhou, D.; Li, X. The impact and mechanism of digital Divide on rural household income: An empirical analysis based on China Household Tracking Survey (CFPS) data. J. Southwest Minzu Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci.; 2022; 43, pp. 116-127.

48. Huang, M.; Dou, X. Will the digital divide between urban and rural areas hinder the upgrading of rural residents’ consumption structure?—Based on China Household Tracking Survey (CFPS) data. Inq. Econ. Issues; 2022; 9, pp. 47-64.

49. Kang, J.; Li, J. The influence of digital divide on the quality of rural basic education in Southwest minority areas and its countermeasures. Guizhou Ethn. Stud.; 2022; 43, pp. 193-198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13965/j.cnki.gzmzyj10026959.2022.03.030]

50. Li, Q.; Han, Q. Digital Divide and Household Wealth Gap: An Empirical Test based on CHFS data. J. Yunnan Univ. Financ. Econ.; 2021; 37, pp. 80-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16537/j.cnki.jynufe.000729]

51. Sayaf, A.M.; Alamri, M.M.; Alqahtani, M.A.; Alrahmi, W.M. Factors Influencing University Students’ Adoption of Digital Learning Technology in Teaching and Learning. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14010493]

52. Lei, Z. Validity, temperature and scale of digital governance. Gov. Stud.; 2021; 37, pp. 5-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15944/j.cnki.33-1010/d.2021.02.001]

53. Huo, P.; Ying, H. The theoretical basis, action logic and practical Path of bridging the digital divide between urban and rural areas—Based on the analysis of “Network Action Plan for Poverty Alleviation”. J. China Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci.; 2022; 39, pp. 183-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13240/j.cnki.caujsse.2022.05.007]

54. Du, Y.; Cao, L.; Tan, C. How does platformization help manufacturing enterprises to cross the digital divide of transformation and upgrading?—An exploratory case study based on Zongshen Group. J. Manag. World; 2022; 38, pp. 117-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2022.0083]

55. Shumin, W. Bridging the Global Digital Divide: What to do with international Law. J. Political Sci. Law; 2021; 6, pp. 3-15.

56. Ge, X.; Zhang, L. The Reason of “New Digital Gap” for urban and rural teachers and the way to bridge it—From the theoretical perspective of “Knowledge Gap”. J. South China Norm. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed.; 2021; 4, pp. 42-51.

57. Jamil, S. From digital divide to digital inclusion: Challenges for wide-ranging digitalization in Pakistan. Telecommun. Policy; 2021; 45, 102206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102206]

58. Chen, Z. Public Policy Analysis; China Renmin University Press: Beijing, China, 2003; ISBN 7-300-04986-9

59. Rui, W. Quantitative evaluation of China’s Policy to stabilize foreign trade and foreign investment in an uncertain environment: Based on an analysis of 73 policy texts from 2018 to 2022. Adm. Trib.; 2022; 29, pp. 75-81.

60. Henry, N. Public Administration and Public Affairs; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-7-300-14380-4

61. Chunfu, W. Policy Network and realization mechanism of public policy Effectiveness. J. Manag. World; 2006; 9, pp. 137-138.

62. Rothwell, R. Reindustrialization and technology: Towards a national policy framework. Sci. Public Policy; 1985; 12, pp. 113-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/spp/12.3.113]

63. Van Dijk, J.; Hacker, K. The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. Inf. Soc.; 2003; 19, pp. 315-326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240309487]

64. Van Dijk, J. A Framework for Digital Divide Research. Electron. J. Commun.; 2002; 12, pp. 1-2.

65. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quart; 2003; 27, pp. 425-478. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30036540]

66. Reisdorf, B.C.; Groselj, D. Internet (non-)use types and motivational access: Implications for digital inequalities research. New Media Soc.; 2015; 19, pp. 1157-1176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444815621539]

67. Van Deursen, A.J.A.M.; Mossberger, K. Any Thing for Anyone? A New Digital Divide in Internet-of-Things Skills. Policy Internet; 2018; 10, pp. 122-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/poi3.171]

68. Blank, G.; Groselj, D. Dimensions of Internet use: Amount, variety, and types. Inf. Commun. Soc.; 2014; 17, pp. 417-435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.889189]

69. Ruiz Estrada, M.A. Policy modeling: Definition, classification and evaluation. J. Policy Model.; 2011; 33, pp. 523-536. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2011.02.003]

70. Ruiz Estrada, M.A.; Yap, S.F.; Nagaraj, S. Beyond the Ceteris Paribus Assumption: Modeling Demand and Supply Assuming Omnia Mobilis. Int. J. Econ. Res.; 2008; 5, pp. 185-194.

71. Thorsrud, L.A. Words are the New Numbers: A Newsy Coincident Index of the Business Cycle. J. Bus. Econ. Stat.; 2020; 38, pp. 393-409. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2018.1506344]

72. Baker, S.R.; Bloom, N.; Davis, S.J. Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty. Q. J. Econ.; 2016; 131, pp. 1593-1636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw024]

73. Fan, Z.; Shi, W. Research on information equity in the 21st Century: Context, Structure and Prospect. Doc. Inf. Knowl.; 2023; 40, pp. 137-150.

74. Yang, S.U. Hidden digital divide and its governance. J. Xi’an Univ. Financ. Econ.; 2023; 36, pp. 41-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19331/j.cnki.jxufe.2023.01.008]

75. Silva, D.S.; Yamashita, G.H.; Cortimiglia, M.N.; Brust-Renck, P.G.; Caten, C.S.T. Are we ready to assess digital readiness? Exploring digital implications for social progress from the Network Readiness Index. Technol. Soc.; 2022; 68, 101875. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101875]

76. Wang, L.; Liu, C. Critical evaluation of China’s universal service policy: Toward a harmonious online nation. Inf. Soc.; 2021; 37, pp. 177-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2021.1897912]

77. Liu, C.; Wang, L. Does national broadband plan narrow regional digital divide? Evidence from China. Chin. J. Commun.; 2019; 12, pp. 449-466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2019.1609539]

78. Lixia, F. The system logic and standardization of the Party—Government joint document. Chin. J. Law; 2021; 43, pp. 3-19.

79. Fang, M.L.; Canham, S.L.; Battersby, L.; Sixsmith, J.; Wada, M.; Sixsmith, A. Exploring Privilege in the Digital Divide: Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice. Gerontologist; 2019; 59, pp. E1-E15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny037]

80. Korovkin, V.; Park, A.; Kaganer, E. Towards conceptualization and quantification of the digital divide. Inf. Commun. Soc.; 2022; pp. 1-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2085612]

81. Da Silva, A.; Teixeira, A.A.; Cavalcanti, T. The Digital Divide and the Smart Digital Governance in Brazil: Tensions between the Skills of Multiple Policy Areas and the Needs of Society. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance; Athens, Greece, 6–8 October 2021; Loukis, E.; Macadar, M.A.; Nielsen, M.M. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 129-135.