BTW, a point of clarification: I responded to the article on "The real digital divide". It seems there are a number of areas to which a response would be helpful as suggested by Andy.
-----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Carll, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Telecentres] >>: Economist: skeptical take on telecenters & ICT4D Hi Andy and All, I sent a letter to the editor on March 13th in response to the article. If others get a chance, they should do as well. Elizabeth Dr. Elizabeth Carll Focal Point to WSIS International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies; Chair, Media/ICT Working Group, UN NGO Committee on Mental Health, New York; -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy Carvin Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Telecentres] >>: Economist: skeptical take on telecenters & ICT4D Hi everyone, I'm hoping to draft a letter to the editor in response to the latest issue of The Economist. I would suggest others in our group do the same. While the article makes some good points, it oversimplifies the issue and uses selective reasoning. I am sure that if many of us wrote letters, some of them would be published... -andy Mikhail Doroshevich wrote: > Behind the digital divide > Mar 10th 2005 > The Economist > > > Development: Much is made of the “digital divide” between rich and poor. > > What do people on the ground think about it? > > IN THE village of Embalam in southern India, about 15 miles outside the > town of Pondicherry, Arumugam and his wife, Thillan, sit on the red > earth > in front of their thatch hut. She is 50 years old; he is not sure, but > thinks he is around 75. Arumugam is unemployed. He used to work as a > drum-beater at funerals, but then he was injured, and now he has trouble > > walking. Thillan makes a little money as a part-time agricultural > labourer—about 30 rupees ($0.70) a day, ten days a month. Other than > that, > they get by on meagre (and sporadic) government disability payments. > > In the new India of cybercafés and software tycoons, Arumugam and > Thillan, > and the millions of other villagers around the country like them, seem > like > anachronisms. But just a few steps outside their section of the > village—a > section known as the “colony”, where the untouchables traditionally > live—the sheen of India's technology boom is more evident in a green > room > equipped with five computers, state-of-the-art solar cells and a > wireless > connection to the internet. This is the village's Knowledge Centre, one > of > 12 in the region set up by a local non-profit organisation, the M. S. > Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF). The centres, established with > the > aid of international donor agencies and local government support, offer > villagers a range of information, including market prices for crops, job > > listings, details of government welfare schemes, and health advice. > > A conservative estimate of the cost of the equipment in the Embalam > centre > is 200,000 rupees ($4,500), or around 55 years' earnings for Thillan. > Annual running costs are extra. When asked about the centre, Thillan > laughs. “I don't know anything about that,” she says. “It has no > connection > to my life. We're just sitting here in our house trying to survive.” > > Scenes like these, played out around the developing world, have led to > something of a backlash against rural deployments of new information and > > communications technologies, or ICTs, as they are known in the jargon of > > development experts. In the 1990s, at the height of the technology boom, > > rural ICTs were heralded as catalysts for “leapfrog development”, > “information societies” and a host of other digital-age panaceas for > poverty. Now they have largely fallen out of favour: none other than > Bill > Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, derides them as distractions from the > real problems of development. “Do people have a clear view of what it > means > to live on $1 a day?” he asked at a conference on the digital divide in > 2000. “About 99% of the benefits of having a PC come when you've > provided > reasonable health and literacy to the person who's going to sit down and > > use it.” That is why, even though Mr Gates made his fortune from > computers, > the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, now the richest charity in the > world, > concentrates on improving health in poor countries. > > The backlash against ICTs is understandable. Set alongside the medieval > living conditions in much of the developing world, it seems foolhardy to > > throw money at fancy computers and internet links. Far better, it would > appear, to spend scarce resources on combating AIDS, say, or on better > sanitation facilities. Indeed, this was the conclusion reached by the > recently concluded Copenhagen Consensus project, which brought together > a > group of leading economists to prioritise how the world's development > resources should be spent (see articles). The panel came up with 17 > priorities: spending more on ICTs was not even on the list. > > Still, it may be somewhat hasty to write off rural technology > altogether. > Charles Kenny, a senior economist at the World Bank who has studied the > role of ICTs in development, says that traditional cost-benefit > calculations are in the best of cases “an art, not a science”. With > ICTs, > he adds, the picture is further muddied by the newness of the > technologies; > economists simply do not know how to quantify the benefits of the > internet. > > The view from the ground > > Given the paucity of data, then, and even of sound methodologies for > collecting the data, an alternative way to evaluate the role of ICTs in > development is simply to ask rural residents what they think. Applied in > > rural India, in the villages served by the MSSRF, this approach reveals > a > more nuanced picture than that suggested by the sceptics, though not an > entirely contradictory one. > > Villagers like Arumugam and Thillan—older, illiterate and lower > caste—appear to have little enthusiasm for technology. Indeed, Thillan, > who > lives barely a five-minute walk from the village's Knowledge Centre, > says > she did not even know about its existence until two months ago (even > though > the centre has been open for several years). When Thillan and a group of > > eight neighbours are asked for their development priorities—a common > man's > version of the Copenhagen Consensus—they list sanitation, land, health, > education, transport, jobs—the list goes on and on, but it does not > include > computers, or even telephones. They are not so much sceptical of ICTs as > > oblivious; ICTs are irrelevant to their lives. This attitude is echoed > by > many villagers at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. In the > fishing community of Veerapatinam, the site of another MSSRF centre, > Thuradi, aged 45, sits on the beach sorting through his catch. “I'm > illiterate,” he says, when asked about the centre. “I don't know how to > use > a computer, and I have to fish all day.” > > But surely technology can provide information for the likes of Thuradi, > even if he does not sit down in front of the computers himself? Among > other > things, the centre in this village offers information on wave heights > and > weather patterns (information that Thuradi says is already available on > television). Some years ago, the centre also used satellites to map the > movements of large schools of fish in the ocean. But according to > another > fisherman, this only benefited the rich: poor fishermen, lacking > motorboats > and navigation equipment, could not travel far enough, or determine > their > location precisely enough, to use the maps. > > Such stories bring to mind the uneven results of earlier technology-led > development efforts. Development experts are familiar with the notion of > > “rusting tractors”—a semi-apocryphal reference to imported agricultural > technologies that littered poor countries in the 1960s and 1970s. Mr > Kenny > says he similarly anticipates “a fair number of dusty rooms with old > computers piled up in them around the countryside.” > > That may well be true, but it does not mean that the money being > channelled > to rural technology is going entirely unappreciated. Rural ICTs appear > particularly useful to the literate, to the wealthier and to the > younger—those, in other words, who sit at the top of the socio-economic > hierarchy. In the 12 villages surrounding Pondicherry, students are > among > the most frequent users of the Knowledge Centres; they look up exam > results, learn computer skills and look for jobs. Farmers who own land > or > cattle, and who are therefore relatively well-off, get veterinary > information and data on crop prices. > > > “I'm illiterate,” says one fisherman. “I don't know how to use a > computer, > and I have to fish all day.” > > Outside the Embalam colony, at a village teashop up the road from the > temple, Kumar, the 35-year-old shop owner, speaks glowingly about the > centre's role in disseminating crop prices and information on government > > welfare schemes, and says the Knowledge Centre has made his village > “famous”. He cites the dignitaries from development organisations and > governments who have visited; he also points to the fact that people > from > 25 surrounding villages come to use the centre, transforming Embalam > into > something of a local information hub. > > At the centre itself, Kasthuri, a female volunteer who helps run the > place, > says that the status of women in Embalam has improved as a result of > using > the computers. “Before, we were just sitting at home,” she says. “Now we > > feel empowered and more in control.” Some economists might dismiss such > sentiments as woolly headed. But they are indicators of a sense of civic > > pride and social inclusiveness that less conventional economists might > term > human development or well-being. > > A question of priorities > > Given the mixed opinions on the ground, then, the real issue is not > whether > investing in ICTs can help development (it can, in some cases, and for > some > people), but whether the overall benefits of doing so outweigh those of > investing in, say, education or health. Leonard Waverman of the London > Business School has compared the impact on GDP of increases in > teledensity > (the number of telephones per 100 people) and the primary-school > completion > rate. He found that an increase of 100 basis points in teledensity > raised > GDP by about twice as much as the same increase in primary-school > completion. As Dr Waverman acknowledges, however, his calculations do > not > take into account the respective investment costs—and it is the cost of > ICTs that makes people such as Mr Gates so sceptical of their > applicability > to the developing world. > > Indeed, Ashok Jhunjhunwala, a professor at the Indian Institute of > Technology in Chennai (formerly Madras), argues that cost is the > “deciding > factor” in determining whether the digital divide will ever be bridged. > To > that end, Dr Jhunjhunwala and his colleagues are working on a number of > low-cost devices, including a remote banking machine and a fixed > wireless > system that cuts the cost of access by more than half. But such > innovation > takes time and is itself expensive. > > Perhaps a more immediate way of addressing the cost of technology is to > rely on older, more proven means of delivering information. Radios, for > example, are already being used by many development organisations; their > > cost (under $10) is a fraction of the investment (at least $800) > required > for a telephone line. In Embalam and Veerapatinam, few people actually > ever > sit at a computer; they receive much of their information from > loudspeakers > on top of the Knowledge Centre, or from a newsletter printed at the > centre > and delivered around the village. Such old-fashioned methods of > communication can be connected to an internet hub located further > upstream; > these hybrid networks may well represent the future of technology in the > > developing world. > > But for now, it seems that the most cost-effective way of providing > information over the proverbial “last mile” is often decidedly low-tech. > On > December 26th 2004, villagers in Veerapatinam had occasion to marvel at > the > reliability of a truly old-fashioned source of information. As the Asian > > tsunami swept towards the south Indian shoreline, over a thousand > villagers > were gathered safely inland around the temple well. About an hour and a > half before the tsunami, the waters in the well had started bubbling and > > rising to the surface; by the time the wave hit, a whirlpool had formed > and > the villagers had left the beach to watch this strange phenomenon. > > Nearby villages suffered heavy casualties, but in Veerapatinam only one > person died out of a total population of 6,200. The villagers attribute > their fortuitous escape to divine intervention, not technology. Ravi, a > well-dressed man standing outside the Knowledge Centre, says the > villagers > received no warning over the speakers. “We owe everything to Her,” he > says, > referring to the temple deity. “I'm telling you honestly,” he says. “The > > information came from Her.” > > > > _______________________________________________ > telecentres mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/telecentres > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. -- ----------------------------------- Andy Carvin Program Director EDC Center for Media & Community acarvin @ edc . org http://www.digitaldivide.net http://www.tsunami-info.org Blog: http://www.andycarvin.com ----------------------------------- _______________________________________________ telecentres mailing list [email protected] http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/telecentres To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. _______________________________________________ telecentres mailing list [email protected] http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/telecentres To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
