On 17th March, the Humanitarian Centre welcomed Professor Tim Unwin, UNESCO Chair in ICT4D (ICT for Development) at Royal Holloway, to Cambridge, where he gave a talk on the impacts of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) on poverty. In his thought-provoking lecture, Prof. Unwin challenged the assumption that ICT4D projects and economic growth would automatically have a positive effect on the lives of the poor. He pointed out some of the limitations of ICT4D, raising critical questions but also making recommendations for more effective ICT4D initiatives.
Tim Unwin began by looking at how the concept of ‘development’ is still largely interpreted as economic growth that will lead to the elimination of poverty. He argued that, due to the widespread persistence of inequality throughout the world, we need to start understanding poverty and development in different ways, such as achieving social equity, freedom and political justice. He said that ICT4D could be particularly beneficial to disadvantaged groups, such as the disabled, and called for more resources to be directed towards them.
© Tim Unwin
Continuing his talk, Prof. Unwin highlighted case studies of ICT4D projects that were not as successful as initially believed. He suggested that the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project, for example, was not as successful as often claimed, in part because it was a ‘top-down’, externally driven initiative that did not necessarily serve the best interest of young people. Similarly, the programme to replace teachers with plasma screens in classrooms in Ethiopia did not adequately take into account the local contexts, leading to further alienation of teachers and expenditure of considerable resources that might have been better spent in other ways.
Tim Unwin was critical of ICT4D projects that are implemented without first considering user contexts and needs, integrating them into national policies or fostering effective partnerships. He also said that, as many ICT4D initiatives are pilot-based projects, questions of scale and sustainability are not always addressed. Prof. Unwin went on to contrast two main types of approach to ICT4D: a ‘top-down’, technology-led approach, which involves developing ideas in Europe or North America before applying them to development contexts; and a ‘bottom-up’ approach, driven more by the needs and demands of the poor themselves, with support from the North. Demonstrating the value of the ‘bottom-up’ approach, Tim Unwin gave examples of successful education and ICT projects in Ethiopia and the Philippines in which considerable emphasis was placed on multi-stakeholder engagement, partnership building and needs-driven project development.
Prof. Unwin went on to explore ways that mobile phones can benefit poor people. He explained that mobile phones are, in practice, used mainly for social purposes, and that people are willing to pay considerable amounts for this. So using a mobile phone does not in itself alleviate economic poverty, and the money spent can represent a significant proportion of a poor person’s income. (Evidence has suggested that in South Africa, for example, poor people can spend an average of 20% of their income on mobile phones.) But Tim Unwin gave examples of recent developments that have been beneficial: mobile banking, such as M-Pesa in Kenya; FrontlineSMS (free software for sending text messages to large groups of people); and Ushahidi, an interactive mapping tool using crowd sourcing for ‘democratising information’ and ‘increasing transparency’.
© Tim Unwin
Bringing his talk to a close, Prof. Unwin questioned whether technology can really serve the needs of the poor, warning that it could primarily serve the interests of the powerful; namely large global companies. He argued that the current development agenda is driven by ‘neoliberal market agendas’ that do not necessarily serve the needs of the poorest and most marginalised. He stressed the importance of government involvement, identifying states’ responsibility to ensure a fair regulatory environment and to provide infrastructure so that ICT services are delivered to the poorest. In conclusion, Tim Unwin gave some key recommendations for successful ICT4D projects: they should focus on the needs of the most marginalised, support ‘bottom-up’ innovation, address social and political agendas and build appropriate partnerships. Prof. Unwin said he hoped that the audience would take away these key aspects of what is needed, or still lacking, in ICT4D projects.
*
By Elke Matthaei / The Humanitarian Centre
21 March 2011
*
Links
Listen to the podcast: MP3
View the presentation: PDF
*
Professor Unwin’s blog: http://unwin.wordpress.com/
ICT4D Collective at Royal Holloway, University of London: www.ict4d.org.uk
*
M-Pesa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa
FrontlineSMS: www.frontlinesms.com
Ushahidi: www.ushahidi.com
*
‘Can One Laptop Per Child save the world’s poor?‘ (PDF) by Mark Warschauer and Morgan Ames
Mobile phones are a fairly top-down technology, but user engagement comes when people choose which one to buy and use it how they want.
That seems like a pretty good model for projects like the OLPC.
Prof. Unwin is making an excellent point in stressing the need for more “bottom-up” thinking in developing ICT4D solutions for the poor. However, if in fact the poor are already spending an inordinate amount of their income on mobile phones for predominantly social purposes isn’t there value in providing technology-based solutions such as FrontlineSMS which can leverage that investment for other uses that may be economically beneficial?
I certainly beleive in the bottom up aproach.because when u involve grassroots participation,it means a project will be able 2 tackle the actual needs of the affected.this promotes sustainable dvt and thus curbs dependancy syndrome.thanx prof Unwin.
Bottom-up sounds attractive but in developing world communities(where I come from) this sounds too high. I prefer a rather horizontal approach where mobile telephony for instance is used to communicate grassroots sensitivities and needs and project implementers, donors and policy makes receive the messages and do some feed-backing. Its a synthesis from top bottom and bottom up