The price of connectivity: when one gigabyte costs a day's work

In 2018, the United Nations set a simple rule for measuring whether the internet is truly accessible: the "1 for 2" target, one gigabyte of mobile data for no more than 2% of monthly gross national income per capita, roughly the equivalent of half a day's work. Seven years later, West Africa remains split in two. In Nigeria, Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire, data has finally dropped below this threshold. But in Burkina Faso, a basic mobile basket still costs 9.81% of monthly income, nearly five times the target, the equivalent of more than two days of work for a single month of connectivity. The same gigabyte, from one country to another within the same region, can therefore cost half a day or two days. This is not a matter of technology: it is a matter of price, and price is a decision.

A region split into two tariff worlds

West Africa does not have one data market, it has two. On one side, the countries where connectivity has become affordable in the UN sense: in 2023, Nigeria posted the most accessible rate in the region with a 2 GB basket at 1.61% of monthly gross national income per capita, followed by Ghana (1.94%) and Côte d'Ivoire, just at the threshold (2.00%). On the other side, the countries where data remains a luxury: Senegal (2.47%) is close to the target without reaching it, while Burkina Faso (9.81%) stays far from it. This dividing line follows neither geography nor language: it tracks the map of incomes and pricing policies. And relative to income, mobile data cost 14 times more in Africa than in Europe in 2024, a gap that has actually widened from a factor of 12 in 2023.

The African average is falling, but stays at double the target

The underlying trend is encouraging. In 2024, the median price of an entry-level mobile plan (2 GB per month) represented 4.2% of gross national income per capita across the continent, down from 4.6% in 2023 and 5.9% in 2022. Over the longer run, the movement is clear: the average price of a gigabyte in Africa has fallen by roughly a third since the UN target was adopted in 2018. Data is therefore becoming, year after year, more accessible. But the destination remains far from the goal: at 4.2%, the African median still sits at more than double the 2% target, and well above the global median, which fell to 1.1% in 2024. In other words, the continent is moving in the right direction, but a decade behind the rest of the world.

The mechanism: one ratio, two levers

To act on affordability, one must understand how it is calculated. The indicator is a simple ratio: the price of the data basket divided by monthly income. A plan can therefore become more "affordable" in two ways, by lowering the price of the gigabyte or by raising income, and conversely a poor country will show a high ratio even at a moderate tariff. This is exactly the trap facing the region's low-income economies. Landlocked countries, whose gross national income per capita is among the lowest (Niger at 670 dollars, Burkina Faso at 850, Mali at 1,030 in 2024), combine high infrastructure costs, tied to their distance from submarine cables and to low density, with low incomes. The numerator rises, the denominator falls, and the share of income absorbed by connectivity mechanically explodes.

The levers for lowering prices are also well identified. Competition between operators drives prices down where it is real. Sector taxation, when it stacks levies on handsets, on top-ups and on operators, feeds directly into the subscriber's bill. Finally, the rollout of fibre and 4G reduces the unit cost of transporting data. These three levers, competition, taxation, infrastructure, all fall within public decision-making and regulation. Affordability is therefore not an exogenous condition imposed on states: it is, for the most part, the product of their own choices.

The continent's extremes: when one gigabyte devours a quarter of income

To grasp the scale of the stakes, one must look at the continent's extremes, where the price becomes prohibitive. Historical data from the Alliance for Affordable Internet, covering the cost of 1 GB in 2020, reveals a chasm. In the Central African Republic, a single gigabyte then cost 24.44% of average monthly income, nearly a quarter of a month's income for one year of what the UN considers the digital minimum for survival. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that same gigabyte absorbed 20.67% of income. In West Africa, Togo was among the most expensive countries in the world: 15.10% of monthly income for 1 GB, more than seven times the affordability threshold. At the other end of the same continent, South Africa (1.41%) and Nigeria (1.71%) already offered data below the target. A factor of more than 17 thus separated the two African extremes for a strictly identical product.

On average across the continent, 1 GB of mobile data cost about 5.7% of average monthly income in 2020 according to A4AI, and the average price of a gigabyte has since fallen by a third since the UN target was adopted in 2018. The direction is therefore right, and fast. But the scale of the extremes reminds us that the average says nothing about the fate of the worst-placed countries: where the starting point was 15 or 24% of income, even a one-third drop leaves data out of reach for the great majority. For these countries, affordability will not be won through market dynamics alone, but through deliberate public intervention on taxation, competition and infrastructure.

The same gigabyte can cost less than half a day's work in Nigeria and more than two days in Burkina Faso. The price of connectivity is not a geographic inevitability: it is a public-policy variable.

Translating price into working time

A percentage of income remains abstract. To grasp what the price of data means concretely, it must be converted into working time. Based on a working month of about 22 days, a 2 GB basket costs in Nigeria the equivalent of 0.35 days of work, barely more than two hours. In Ghana (0.43 days) and Côte d'Ivoire (0.44 days), it takes less than half a day. In Senegal, a little more than half a day (0.54 days). Then comes the break: in Burkina Faso, connecting for a month requires 2.16 days of work, four to six times the effort demanded of a neighbour. This is no longer a difference of degree, it is a difference of nature. Where connectivity costs two hours, it is part of daily life; where it costs two days, it becomes a trade-off between connecting and covering other essential needs.

The cost of inaction: an invisible barrier of 60%

Price is not merely a budgetary nuisance: it is a filter that excludes. In sub-Saharan Africa, about 60% of the population lives in an area covered by 4G but does not use mobile internet. This is the largest "usage gap" in the world, and the affordability of both data and handsets ranks among its foremost obstacles. The coverage exists, the tower is there, but the price remains out of reach. This usage gap is different from, and far larger than, the coverage gap: it is not solved by building networks, but by making their use affordable. Each percentage point of income added to the price pushes modest households a little further out of digital public services, online education and financial inclusion.

The consequences go beyond individual access. A household excluded from the digital world is a household that is less productive, less banked, less informed about agricultural prices, health alerts or administrative procedures. At the scale of a country, this exclusion holds back productivity and deepens territorial inequalities, because those who remain offline are also, most often, the poorest and the furthest from urban centres. It also has a gender dimension: in the region, women are about 14% less connected than men, which compounds an exclusion already present in access to land, credit and employment. The price of data is therefore not a sectoral telecommunications issue: it is a cross-cutting determinant of development, weighing on health, education and the economy. Reducing the price of connectivity means acting upstream on the whole chain of inclusion, not just on a bill.

Price and usage: the link visible in the figures

The correlation between affordability and usage is not a theoretical hypothesis, it is written in the data. Ghana, where data is affordable, shows an internet usage rate of 70.7% in 2023. At the other end of the spectrum, Niger, the country with the lowest gross national income in the sample, counts only 13.0% of users. Between the two, the region unfolds almost like a gradient of incomes and prices: Senegal 59.2%, Côte d'Ivoire 40.7%, Nigeria 40.1%, Togo 37.6%, Mali 36.0%, Benin 32.4%, Burkina Faso 25.4%. Where connectivity costs half a day of work, the majority connects; where it costs two days, a large majority stays offline. Price does not explain everything, but no other factor draws so clear a line between the connected countries and the rest.

The recent dynamic confirms the link. Between 2020 and 2023, Ghana continued its progress, from 62.5% to 70.7%, consolidating an already broad base. Benin experienced rapid catch-up, from 22.1% to 32.4%, gaining more than ten points in three years. But Niger is plateauing: barely up from 11.9% in 2020, it stagnates around 13% and even edges down slightly in 2023. Where the price remains prohibitive and income very low, simply extending networks is no longer enough to raise usage. The barrier is not in the sky, it is in the wallet.

A global gap that West Africa embodies

The West African case is not a local anomaly, it is the sharp edge of a global inequality. Across the planet, a subscriber in a low-income economy pays for mobile data 19 times more, as a share of income, than a subscriber in a high-income economy; the gap remains 6 times for a lower-middle-income economy. In other words, those with the fewest means pay proportionally the most for the same service. This regressivity is the exact opposite of what an inclusion policy would require, which should instead ease the burden on the most modest. And it is not fixed: the Africa-Europe gap widened between 2023 and 2024, moving from a factor of 12 to a factor of 14. Without deliberate action, the fall in global prices can therefore leave the poorest economies even further behind, not despite general progress, but because that progress does not reach them at the same pace.

What the averages hide

The African average of 4.2% is a convenient and misleading figure. It flattens realities ranging from less than half a day of work in Nigeria to more than two days in Burkina Faso. But the most insidious trap lies in the denominator itself. Gross national income per capita is an average: in highly unequal countries, this "reference income" far exceeds what the rural and modest majority actually earns. A basket officially at 2% of average income can therefore represent 5, 8 or 10% of the real income of a poor household. The official percentage systematically underestimates the real weight of connectivity for those who are already the furthest from it. The advertised affordability is that of the average citizen, who does not exist.

The divide is also territorial. Adults in rural areas are about 48% less likely to use mobile internet than those in cities, the combined effect of looser coverage, lower incomes and less affordable handsets. A national average, by adding up a connected capital and an offline hinterland, produces a figure that describes neither of the two accurately. Steering a digital inclusion policy on the national average alone means aiming at a target that masks precisely the populations one should reach as a priority.

Two baskets, one target: methodological caution

Measuring affordability demands a rigour that too many comparisons neglect. Two baskets coexist in international sources. Historically, the Alliance for Affordable Internet measures the cost of 1 GB of prepaid mobile data; the ITU, in its recent publications, mainly uses a data-only 2 GB basket. Both are expressed as a percentage of monthly gross national income per capita and compared to the same 2% target, but their levels are not directly comparable: one can neither add a 1 GB figure and a 2 GB figure, nor set an A4AI average (about 5.7% for 1 GB in 2020) against an ITU median (4.2% for 2 GB in 2024) as though they were the same object. What is solid and convergent is the trend: a clear and continuous decline in the relative price of data since 2018.

• Two basket volumes. A4AI reasons on 1 GB, the ITU on 2 GB: comparing the raw levels between the two sources amounts to comparing different baskets.
• Average or median. The sources mix averages and medians depending on the year, which mechanically shifts the reported figure without the market having moved.
• The income year matters. Nigeria's gross national income per capita fell sharply in current dollars (from 2,590 dollars in 2023 to 1,710 in 2024, Atlas method), due to naira exchange-rate adjustments: any price-to-income ratio expressed as a percentage must specify the income year used.

This caution is not an expert's quibble. A pricing policy steered on non-comparable figures leads to false diagnoses and misdirected spending. Knowing exactly which basket, which year and which method lie behind a percentage is the first condition for turning a target into a measurable trajectory.

The CRAD angle: measuring real affordability, not the slogan

Tracking affordability requires cross-referencing two series that states rarely produce together. On one side, tariffs surveyed operator by operator, basket by basket, following the ITU methodology, to capture the price actually charged and not the headline price. On the other, the real income of households, beyond average gross national income, disaggregated by region, by income quintile and by gender. It is the intersection of these two dimensions that reveals lived affordability, the one that decides who connects and who stays excluded. Without this granularity, a country can celebrate crossing below the 2% bar while the rural half of its population continues to pay, as a share of real income, several times that threshold.

This is precisely the work that CRAD equips regulators and West African funders to do: building disaggregated affordability indices, anchored in digital field data collection and monitoring and evaluation, to objectively assess the real impact of tariff and tax policies. Mapping affordability by region and by quintile means moving the "1 for 2" target from the status of a slogan to that of a steerable trajectory, with intermediate targets, accountable owners and year-on-year measurement. Data on the price of data is, itself, a public good: without it, digital inclusion advances blind.

← All insights