IntroductionScholarship since at least Leete (i9i9) has studied the socioeconomic gap as a function of access to information. In the mid-i970s, Childers (i975) deemed economic poverty the leading indicator of information poverty. Since the late i990s, the the gap between who access to the Internet and potential who do not, has gained ever-increasing prominence. This paper reviews the current literature on the digital divide, analyzes the motives of the authors proposing solutions for closing the divide, and uses the analysis as a perspective from which to examine the benefits of proposed solutions.BackgroundThe digital divide closely corresponds to the historical divide between the societally privileged haves and the societally disadvantaged have-nots (NTIA, 2000). It connects intrinsically to concern for several major socioeconomic problems:1. Concern among the haves for political stability:Hochschild (i98i) discussed thinkers from Aristotle to John Adams to Lord Macaulay, all of whom believed that extreme di∂erences in wealth make democracies unstable. Dervin (i994) applied the same concept to users of information through her examination of the controlling narrative of Information [arrow left] [arrow right] Democracy. Those on the haves side of the digital divide more to lose than do the have nots in a climate of political instability. They ignore the divide, and the human misery motivating the other side of the divide, at their own peril.2. Concern for equity:Hochschild (i98i) stated that a majority of Americans, rich and poor alike, favored social and political equality for all, yet they felt that people should receive only the economic resources that they earned. Those who work to increase social and political equity through mitigation of the divide, therefore, the approval of a majority of Americans, whether they seek that approval or not.3. Concern for intellectual advancement:Licklider and Taylor, (i968) asked the incredibly prescient will 'to be on line' be a privilege or a right? If only a favored segment of the population gets a chance to enjoy the advantage of 'intelligence amplification', the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity. Disenfranchisement of intellects on the unconnected side of the divide benefits no one. Indeed, the business community needs trained workers and consumers as much as the work force needs training and access to computers and Internet markets.4. Concern over the contribution of technological advance to the information gap:Howland (i998) and Bucy (2000) discussed the impact of technology. According to Bucy (2000), while there are signs of a diversified, online population, there is not yet a committed, mass audience of nonelite Internet users. He argues that disparities in Internet use indicate an alarming information gap between those with access and those without it.Annually, institutions appropriate billions of dollars to study the digital divide and to propose solutions: but do the spent billions reduce the divide- or do they merely aggrandize the proposers? The answer may contain profound implications for policy makers and information professionals. In order to initiate an addressing of the above questions this study turned to the analysis of literature discussing the digital divide. The following three questions guided the research:i. What solutions are being proposed to close the digital divide;2. Who are the stakeholders who propose specific solutions for the closure of digital divide; and3. How do solutions for closure of the digital divide relate to the strategic interests of the stakeholders who propose them?MethodologyAs an underlying objective, this study sought to identify patterns in solutions proposed for closure of the digital divide and the stakeholders who proposed these solutions. …