Page 108 - JOURNAL OF LIBRARY SCIENCE IN CHINA 2018 Vol. 43

108 Journal of Library Science in China, Vol.9, 2017

such as infrastructure, and make up for the internal stability factors, such as the hardware
conditions, network connecting, and digitized literacy of residents. However, it cannot effectively
change the continuous digitalization capability, digital psychology, social support that digital poor
groups face in a short period of time, digital social norms, digital social impact and so on.
The complex phenomenon of digital poverty needs policy designers more comprehensive, more
targeted, and more detailed thinking. Policy designers need to consider the natural laws governing
the acceptance of digital equipment and services by different groups of rural residents. Digital
poverty alleviation approaches for digital poor people in different ages, genders, ethnic groups,
occupations, incomes, family roles, economic development, cultural levels, social status, different
stock of social capital, on different levels of political identity, are obviously different.
Second, policymakers and executives should listen more openly and pragmatically to various
stakeholders’ suggestions and opinions on alleviating digital poverty. They need to hear the
problems existing in the implementation of the current policies discovered by relatively objective
and neutral policy designers, such as think tanks, universities, research institutes, the objective
reality of the digital poor, and the more applicable experiences of poverty alleviation from the
bottom, and the best practice abroad which can be applied to the domestic reality. Policy makers
and implementers should also pay more attention to and assess the feasibility and actual impact
of implementation details in existing policies. They should not stop at the usual aspects of policy
introduction, financial allocation and accidental site visits. Before a policy is introduced, they
should consider how pro-poor resources from different sectors can be synergistically invested
in digital poor communities, especially in rural residents who really need them. They should
encourage stakeholders that are truly suitable for implementing policies take their professional
attitudes and behaviors into account. Consideration should be given to establish a more responsible
and effective policy assessment mechanism and introduce an independent third-party agency to
evaluate the effectiveness of policy implementation.
Third, beneficiaries of information poverty alleviation policies should be more accurately
measured and identified. Not all of the rural residents immersed in digital poverty need to
be eradicated. Not all poor people are able to benefit from public digital resources invested
by different parties. Among thirteen villages in the fieldwork, digital poverty shows obvious
differences in different regions and different groups of the population. Some differences even
allow us to question the necessity and applicability of information poverty alleviation policies
and programs. Top-down public resources for information poverty alleviation are fundamentally
useless for those who are poor in psychological capacity, lacking in the motivation, interest, desire
and successful use of digital devices to access and utilize digital tools. Sometimes they even lead
to negative psychological effects, thereby further strengthening its psychological burden of digital
poverty. And more seriously, such policy and program resources tend to be firstly captured by
elites in traditional societies, thereby increasing the difference in digitization between the two
groups. The digital right of poor people will be further weakened, and even deprived. Digital