I was moved to ask the question in the title after spending the good part of a week going in and out of a conference in Johannesburg on ICT4RD (Rural Development) where much of the discussion and most of the presentations seemed to be assuming some form of smart phone and some rather significant (and expensive in the African context) mobile device and connectivity.
This could also be placed in the context that (as someone mentioned at the conference) in one study in rural Africa it was being found that the costs of mobile communications were absorbing up to 54% of the total net income of certain farmers and perhaps more tellingly, the major applications for mobiles in Sub-Saharan Africa seem to be premised on the likelihood that those for whom the application was being designed would not have enough money to actually pay for the connectivity costs of whatever information/services was being touted.
I should also mention here that my somewhat jaded question was in part the result of again hearing those energetically espousing the virtues of mobile (over for example, fixed Internet access through ahem… Telecentres) by pointing to the exact same applications that I was pointed to some 3 or 4 years ago when mobiles were still in their infancy i.e. providing up-to-date market information to farmers and providing (mostly) safe sex reminders to teenagers.
Both these applications are of course, worthy in themselves and significant if the (as yet to my knowledge, not undertaken impact/evaluation assessments) prove positive however, one would have hoped after all the hype and expenditures (and more or less total diversion of ICT for Development resources in that direction) there might be other additional significant applications that could be pointed to.
So I took my hesitations and provocative blogpost title to lunch with some colleagues here in Maputo (where I am at the moment) with very long and deep experience with development and ICTs in rural Southern Africa. The discussion went back and forth but then a colleague drew a distinction between mobile communications and mobile applications (apps). What they pointed out to me in example after example was the profound significance that having low cost access to communications was having on the well being of people (and in this instance particularly women). And of course, in the rural African context this necessarily means mobiles because of the total lack of alternative infrastructure .
From being able to make contact with a migrant worker spouse, to knowing that someone could be easily summoned in the event of an emergency (including the police), to being able to determine if supplies to support home crafts were available in the shop several kilometres away without having to spend the day walking to the town only to find that what was required was out of stock–the effect of (finally) having the telecommunications access that most of the rest of us have taken for granted for all of our lives was truly beneficial and even transformative of life in rural Africa.
My colleagues went on to talk about the “shiny apps” which is where I had started the conversation. They more or less dismissed these as being irrelevant, at least in the case of Mozambique which is where their experience was, given the relatively high cost of mobiles that could handle the apps we were talking about and similarly the very high communications costs which would be required in most cases to take advantage of these services.
So, we answered my question–
No! mobiles aren’t completely a capitalist plot to keep the poor poor at least for simple low cost person to person communications, but the jury is still out on answering the question for all the shiny M4D (Mobile for Development) apps that seem to be so attractive these days to development funders and the development-erati.
Gurstein's Community Informatics 
Pamela_McLean (@Pamela_McLean)
November 7, 2011
I agree strongly with your answer to your own question – and also agree that you are right about the cost of use being a serious problem to many users/potential users.
For more evidence of the realities I recommend the research done by Ineke Buskens, ref the GRACE programme. She edited a book about it (I could give details later to anyone interested). John Dada and Kazanka Comfort contributed to the book.
There are also potential case studies regarding use of smart phones connected to refurbished PCs or laptops (in Nigeria and in East Africa) by people who learned how to do that via Minciu Sodas.
Fola Sunday, from Ago-Are was recently telling me that he was getting modems for various people while he was in Ibadan, I would guess these people have all come to a desire to use the Internet at home in rural areas through their use of smart phones (and Fola’s teaching of how the Internet can be useful to them). But that is just my guess from the odds and ends he has told me – it would be best to check with him directly if you want more information.
A doctor I know well in Nigeria (both as his patient and as a friend) told me how pleased he was that thanks to his phone patients could check his whereabouts before bringing people to his clinic. Previously if he travelled they would not know he was away and some would make long wasted journeys to the clinic seeking his help.
If anyone is genuinely interested in how phones have made a difference I could help to open up some conversations with various people who were early adopters (see “Why Dadamac? – Dadamac – the Internet-enabled alternative to top-down development” – http://dadamac.posterous.com/dadamac-the-internet-enabled-alternative-to-t)
My email is pamela.mclean@dadamac.net
John Hawker
November 7, 2011
1 – Mobiles only kill the internet cafes because they cafes don’t change their game plan.
I am writing this in a cafe, one of two in a tiny village, both thriving, because they saw what I did and copied successful game plans.
In a larger richer town not far from here, there isn’t even one successful internet cafe.
Don’t blame mobiles for failure, blame poor business planning.
2 – No capitalist wants to keep he poor poor. That’s bad business.
They wants to milk as much money though as possible. Their happy if the poor get a bit richer, more funds for them to milk.
They’ll (The mobile phone companies) happily apply in every country I’ve seen for the Universal Access Grant funds under the concept:-
“We’re the good guys, we’re bringing access to communications”
And they are.
But there are far better alternatives!
Instead of allowing large companies build networks that milk the poor communities of money we could be building networks that are community owned and thereby allowing the bulk of the profits stay within the community.
This isn’t that hard to do, it can be done, even within the current ITU rules there are quirks that allow this in every country, just no advertised.
It isn’t hard, it can be done, I’m willing.
Polly Gaster
November 8, 2011
Mike, I think you missed one point, which is that there isn’t a fight or competition between mobile use and computers or telecentres or whatever – they should be taken together in whatever combination the users find most helpful at a given moment in a given place. In either case developmental assumptions should have some kind of basis in reality in terms of costs, accessibility, reliability, etc, of different options. By and large no plot, I think, but mismatched promises and expectations?
Michael Gurstein
November 8, 2011
Good point Polly…
Dean Mulozi
November 8, 2011
I agree really that there must be some alternatives to rural connectivity other than smart phones. The cost, the usage and availability is really beyond our common farmers in Africa’s rural villages.
How about if we invest in rural entrepreneurs that will only involved a $300 laptop providing connectivity services to wider village communities to a multiple services. Rural service centres could be alternatives to costly applications that may render our rural farmers to perpetual poverty.
Michael Gurstein
November 8, 2011
Yes, I agree Dean…
walbrown
November 8, 2011
Hi again Michael, a great introduction to a conversation that is long overdue.
I personally don’t think the problem has anything to do with capitalism or any other ism, nor has it much to do with technology, ICT or otherwise. It is a very human problem that must ultimately be dealt with in a very people-centered way, whatever that means. There are as many “capitalist” as “communist” or “socialist” emerging economies that understood the power of shared information and did the right things.
I find the techno-centric arguments tedious – mobiles are better than fixed lines, fixed lines are better than mobiles, telecentres don’t work, long live telecentres, fiber is the king so we must stretch fiber to rural areas and have Broadband4RD, etc. Cyberlabs in schools with bank-vault specification security doors, massive locks and reinforced ceilings to run a few Microsoft application courses to a few youngsters who said to somebody that they would like a career in IT, and leave the maths, science and arts students looking in through the heavy steel bars protecting PC lab windows, and dreaming of one day owning their own 10Xmonthly income PCs which, by the way, are now as dead as dodos according to many ICT gurus as they boast about their brilliant offspring mixing it on the latest blackberries and tablets, while sipping champagne in celebration of Steve Jobs’ genius that changed the game plan. Tedious.
The ability to access and share knowledge is a human right that transcends all other human rights – it has led to who we all are today, from our humble beginnings so long ago in what we now call rural Africa from our ivory towers, and dream about fame and fortune as we become the new Zuckerbergs, Pages, Gateses and Brins for the for the 5+ billion looking through invisible burglar-barred ICT widows of the 21st century information age. And all this, without rocking the non-negotiable comfort zones of big ICT industry and its massive support teams of Ivy League and other inspired lobbyists. .
I think the challenge is really very simple – change the mindsets of our economic, business and political leaders, and ourselves collectively, to understand that wealth and security (revolutions are very uncomfortable and costly things) can only be guaranteed if the greater proportion of our humanity share in it. I think we should all be championing the cause of 5% of average income for information access by all humaity, using mobiles, cables, satellites and every other conceivable tool that should become the means to the ends, not the ends themselves. And we must applaud the big hearts of the Negropontes and creators of the Aakash, joining them with creative ideas of how we can beat down the regulatory barriers to creative entrepreneurs from poor areas offering public information services to their equally poor communities using any and every combination of technologies on on their own volition because they can. I like what I hear about the Brazilian Lan Houses – we can be even more creative if we searched for the will to be creative.
BTW, there is an interesting model of how we can begin to change our approach to ICT4D in partnership with all of society – government, business and civil society. It comes out of a Sunday afternoon conversation I was having with a representative of the big mining sector – their search for the human side of that enterprise in the face of severe public criticism. I have, with the permission of its originators, represented this model in the presentation at a recent workshop on LLU – a rather troubled approach to ICT4D in South Africa. The model is recreated as Slide 24 of the presentation downloadable from:
Click to access SACF%20LLU%20Presentation%20V2.pdf
Good luck to all activists in ICT4D.
Walter.
.
Michael Gurstein
November 8, 2011
Thanks for the very interesting comments and reference to you slides Walter. Very much worth a look.
M
Pete Cranston
November 8, 2011
I enjoyed the post, Michael. Interesting connections with the buzzy debate over Eric Hersman’s call for ICT4$ rather than an exploitative ICT4D (constructing windmills, it could be said).
Polly is right about relatively artificial oppositions and the centrality of the dev in all of these combinations. Having said that, the contrast you drew at the ICT4RD conference, Michael, between Community Informatics (which has Community as its lead) and ICT4D which often has ICT as its lead. Is there a Development Informatics, and if not, should there be?
Pete Cranston
Michael Gurstein
November 8, 2011
Hi Peter,
There is in fact a “development informatics” http://www.developmentinformatics.org/ based in South Africa but my observation from a distance is that their focus is rather more on ICTs supporting the “development process” rather than supporting communities as the agents of the development process — which ends up I think in their case being very close to the rather more top down ICT4D approach.
Mike
Jacques Steyn
November 9, 2011
Dear Mike
Thank you for commenting on Development Informatics (DI), and your reference to our initiative – IDIA [1]. DI has many meanings [2] and there certainly are approaches guilty of top-down management. Our own initiative does not fall into that category, so for the sake of the readers of this list, allow me to adjust some misrepresentation.
IDIA has participants from all continents on the globe and about 40 countries (not only South Africa), and our list currently includes 800+ names. We have just held our 5th annual conference in Lima, Peru, and will most likely have our 6th conference in Istanbul, Turkey next year. You are most welcome to participate and see what this is all about. Although government and corporate representatives have participated in some of our workshops, we are certainly not favoring top-down approaches.
Most of our participants favour the participatory action research methodology, and much research is based on the Living Labs methodology where grassroots participants play a major role.
The primary theoretical frameworks of our associates are Manfred Max-Neef, Amartya Sen, Arturo Escobar and similar approaches. Our secondary sources are Giddens, Castells, Easterly and the like; while perhaps all of us have read CI works, such as your own. Associates are from many disciplines in ICT: from applications development and information science to mobile applications, and many have an interest in sociology, psychology, geography and so on, thus ranging from the “hard” to the “soft” sciences.
What DI is trying to achieve:
Most “development” approaches to the “third world”/”underdeveloped world”/”developing world”/”global south”/etc” (pick your term) is biased towards certain economic models that are promoted ideologically. The term “development” is also unfortunate, as it suggest that such communities need to be developed (while the meaning of this term again is ideological) – it makes self-centered claims about the wellbeing of other communities from own positions. The fact that some “developer” thinks some community needs to be developed does not mean that community thinks so. We try to understand such dynamics, and investigate alternatives to this standard approach to development. We are also not technological determinists — okay, some of our community indeed are.
It is against this background that perspectives such as those of Sen make more sense to most of us – “development” is about creating contexts in which individuals and groups can realize their own potential (in the manner of their own choice). From a DI perspective, if one has access to modern communication tools life could be easier, and the tools might enable one to expand one’s horizons. Being aware of other ways of living allows one to make a choice between the way of living inherited from one’s culture, as one among many ways. Some of us do not care so much about economic development as for expanding horizons.
For most of us at IDIA the role of ICT4D or DI is to create those context in which communities and individuals could make better choices. Of course, in real life this is very idealistic, and we have to battle with at least seven categories of major obstacles, ranging from technology deployment and its costs, to people factors ranging from project management to policies, cultures and individual psychologies. There is consensus among us that one size does not fit all.
So briefly then, the way we see DI at IDIA is certainly not top-down; the development process is indeed important in this complex mix of interrelated systems, but not the primary focus; grassroot communities is what it is about.
On the difference between CI and DI.
When CI (perhaps not under that banner) began in the 1990s the main focus was on communities within well-developed regions – such as the use of internet cafes and telecentres in the neighbourhoods / suburbs of cities such as Copenhagen or New York. That was what the bulk of discussions at conferences and papers focused on. For us, living in the developing world, the challenges were more complex, more basic, and more pressing, which is why we called our initiative DI – to make explicit that we are particularly interested in ICT for the really “poor” regions (those of the World Bank’s mythical USD1 or 2 per day; or the bottom 3 billion; or 5 billion, or however you wish to cut the pie). Our main emphasis is not particularly on those poor (whether economically or digitally) in the rich regions. Over time — perhaps because at heart we are all social activists? — the emphasis among the CI community seems to have shifted towards the developing world. So now we are interested in the same things! The mood seems to have shifted globally. Many associations (ACM, IEEE, AIS and many others) now have streams at their conferences addressing ICT4D issues. It seems to be the fad of the day.
At IDIA our philosophy is cooperation. We are not interested in establishing little academic kingdoms, and would much rather work together. Many CI participants also participate in the DI events. It is basically the same family, with historically different emphases.
Hopefully the above clarifies some of the mist, and we could join hands to really make a difference.
Join us at IDIA2012 so that we could discuss these matters further.
Best regards
Jacques Steyn
Director: IDIA
giantpanda
November 8, 2011
Hi from Maputo, I have been thinking a lot about this recently too. I recently discovered Julie Soleil Archambault’s work on mobiles and youth. She brings up a lot of the same issues, also observing how phones impact on gender relations. http://oxford.academia.edu/JulieSoleilArchambault
As you observe, it will be a *long* while before people around here start having widespread access to smartphones. A second hand dumbphone can cost US$100 in a remote part of the country. I also think something that gets ignored by the apps hype is that people who cannot afford smartphones are often using feature phones. Young (urban) people here are using Mig33 (kind of like Mxit) to chat and to save money on airtime.
Anyways thanks for saying what more people need to hear.
John Hawker
November 8, 2011
There very much is a strong competition between Mobile and telecentre. Mobile towers have fibre and backhaul, are often allowed to sell that capacity locally, but the last thing they’ll offer is too a telecentre or business DSL connections, even though technically they could quite easily, speaking from a network perspective.
That would cannibalize their own profits. They are very happy that by offering access to email and low end application on mobiles they eat at the bulk of telecentre applications. It suits their business model.
Don’t be naive, that’s capitalism! Mobile companies COULD offer for a profit and the telecentres would pay access to their backhaul and fibre, but they DON’T because the LAST thing they want is Telecentres using VOIP over the Mobile fibre, that would be dreadful for Mobile business!
Mobile wants telecentres dead as it suits their business models. which is cheap laptops using mobiles to connect.
Telecentres are lazy as they haven’t evolved, so in many ways they often deserve to die.
I see a great future for evolved telecentres still in Africa as peoples demands for sophistication grows – and it’s amazing how fast that grows, it’s up to local business people to grow with it.
What really needs to happen is business models that stop the cash leaving the towns and villages and stay WITHIN the town and Village.
Village ISP is the model I created, using bulk purchased backhaul, locally managed Distribution, that way the mobile carrier isn’t a financial drain upon the community.
The argument isn’t really if the mobile does good, they do
It’s at what COST to the community.
And can that COST be diverted locally.
The answer is YES it can be. Networks can be built and designed around business models so that the profits stick to the village and town NOT flow out into the pockets of the multinational.
That is what we should be aiming for.
That’s what I am aiming for.
Lee Thorn
November 16, 2011
Dear Richard and colleagues,
Thanks for these very helpful insights.
I have been – until very recently – when I ‘retired’ as chair and chief bottle washer at Jhai Foundation – deeply involved in ICT4D since 1997. I worked on mainly an action research basis. Here is – for whatever it is worth – what I think:
1. The expense of connectivity for data is a core problem. This is a business problem. It is solved through thorough, state-of-the-art business planning locally. This:means village by village
a. it is solved with leadership by self-selected entrepreneurs and
b. with participation by de facto and de jure leaders in the village at minimum in market research and buy-in,
c. and especially by women.
d. It means ultimately that health, school, and community information and communication services must be done on a profitable basis or be subsidized by government.
Jhai has a template for this. We are thoroughly documenting our work in Angola where we are doing an integrated telemedicine-education-livelihood project. All permissions are in place. Cooperation with the Polytechnic University in Huige, the state government, and villagers in the village has been excellent. I need to raise about $5K to finish the project. This would include the completion of shooting video, then editing by an editor with 30 years professional experience. We will share that template on the internet on an open source basis. This will be the final piece of work I do for Jhai voluntarily. I have already moved back to consulting.
I used a ‘feature’ phone until this last year. Worked fine. My favorite phone actually is an old Nokia I bought some years ago in India and have used all over the place. For most purposes it works fine, although it is so old I can’t text with it. Texting is the most critical functionality for information and communication these days, I would venture. Here’s an example: our key worker, Eliada Gudza, lives in Zimbabwe. Our work has been recently in Angola. Communication among our team in Zimbabwe, Angola and US has been done largely by text because it is near free and gets through when other means do not.
2. This all reminds me of another truism: whatever you estimate things will cost, it almost always costs more. The only real way to cut costs is to go local. Local ngo’s generally need very little help and often what help they need can be provided virtually by people like … well, me, who has experience and contacts. This can be done on a text, email, video skype or phone card basis. I also have an app we called ‘Jhai Networks’ which allows us to video-chat while sharing files. We also use gchat.
3. Corruption now seems to be a problem in most of the world, not just the developing world. I say this as a 68 year old curmudgeon who spent too much time in his life following politics. Maybe it is not a problem where you are working. If it is a problem in your area, local people know how to deal with it especially through networks of relatives. I think it is not worth foreigners’ time to try to understand or deal with it. Lots of times the best thing to do is wait – or move on, if the corruption is too deep. In one project a local high school principal asked us for a bribe. This meant corruption had filtered down from all levels to this very local level – a guy who certainly was under-paid, of course. When corruption is this deep, I think it is time to move on. The fact of corruption is a core problem just as much as the cost of connectivity. In fact, in most cases, connectivity costs are a product of corruption.
4. The GOOD NEWS is that there are a few apps and appliances that can work at even 2G. The ones with which I’m most familiar are used in telemedicine. For example, our collaborator Neurosynaptic in India has an excellent telemedicine appliance and software that works at 2G or 3G and includes a/v windows as well as lots of sensor data. These apps and appliances, however, do not solve the price of data connectivity issue. That can only be solved, to my knowledge, by sharing the connectivity costs over long days for several uses or by subsidization by local governments. The uses can include eventually computers in homes, for example, as happened in one town in rural Laos some years ago. After putting computers in the local high school there in 2000, within one year over 30% of the homes had computers they bought used across the river in Thailand.
The key is that ICTs are seen LOCALLY as tools people want for communication and information. The EVIDENCE of this desire is that they are willing to put their own time and money into the process of getting them.
The other major consideration are, in fact, political. Can rich countries help subsidize poor countries connectivity? Can relatively poor countries follow India’s and Viet Nam’s lead and provide low and no cost connectivity for schools, clinics and community centers? Can ngo’s and businesses glory in the fact that they do not have all the answers, but with collaboration with very local people, all can succeed?
I’m slowing down, but I’m still greatly interested in ICT4D’s success. I think it is critical that poor people everywhere have the means to communicate with one another across borders. This means translation services, of course, … but that is another topic. For now it is critical that rural poor folks have the means to communicate with people in their countries and diasporas and not only for money transfers, banking and trade, but also to remind family members of the great wisdom that is part and parcel of their particular tradition’s heritage. This diversity of wisdom enriches us all>
I hope this helps.
Lee Thorn
I tweet @leethorn_jhai
http://www.facebook.com/lee.thorn3
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/lee-thorn/2/a17/ba9
Way cool …. see 30 sec video of
2003 JhaiPC bicycle-powered set up at
judythlapomme
December 19, 2011
This is a very interesting discussion and I wish I had some personal experience to add, but all I’ve really got is what I’ve heard from Radio Netherlands’ African programming and Canada’s own CBC. It seems that at least in some parts of Africa, one of the most important functions of the mobile phone is as a replacement for the (unavailable) bank account or credit card. The ability to pay and get paid by mobile phone appears to be a boon to people who are located a long way from banking facilities.and would otherwise be restricted to local bartering. Being able to order supplies without travelling long distances to place the orders and again to fetch the goods seems a good reason to adopt mobiles, in addition to the obvious benefits of being able to make appointments, call people in emergencies, and so on.
It’s also easier to recharge a cellphone with a small solar unit than supply a computer and DSL modem with electricity in a non-electrified rural area. Internet cafes and telecenters are very useful to have but they’re not likely to help in areas where there is no reliable electric supply, and they need some kind of funding to remain viable if the local people only use them on occasional visits to the nearest electrified town.
In any case, long before anyone dreamed of an Internet, science fiction writers were predicting the usefulness of personal communications devices that operated over long distances and could perform multiple functions–essentially, I think, because everyone could relate to that kind of convenience much more easily than to the idea of being forever tethered to fixed equipment by cables. We now have the technological means to equip everyone with that kind of essential multi-purpose communicator. What we lack is the political and economic will to provide the benefit of such devices to everyone … which seems short-sighted to me, given how cost-efficient it would be for society in the long run. Tele-health, education, disaster warnings and many other useful services could reach further for less money, while the most disadvantaged people would find ways to use the technology to improve their own quality of life, as well as the means to avail themselves of government services which they may now be entitled to but are unable to access.
I can’t see a migrant farm-worker or an orphan in a refugee camp getting much good from a laptop program. I can see those lives made very much less painful if they had a small portable gadget that would help them find family and friends over distance and despite whatever physical obstacles prevented a reunion. Ideally, the devices should be Internet-capable phones which open up a whole range of possibilities beyond that, but even that small potential for connection with distant loved ones would make an enormous difference to millions of individuals.