ICT4D Linking Policy to Community Outcomes. Donna Vaughan. Partners in Micro-development Inc

Transcription

1 ICT4D Linking Policy to Community Outcomes Donna Vaughan Partners in Micro-development Inc Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

2 Abstract This article discusses the link between national Information and Communications Technology (ICT) policy in developing countries and the effectiveness of ICT for development (ICT4D) initiatives at a community level. It is based on a Doctoral research project, currently in progress, which has the primary goal of determining determine whether, by adopting a Community Informatics (CI) approach to community based ICT4D projects, which leverages existing social capital in the communities, the sustainability of such projects can be significantly improved so that ICT4D is more inclusive in reach and its overall contribution to development is enhanced. The research has a secondary goal to develop a framework for national ICT policy which is anchored in this social paradigm as distinct from the purely techno-economic paradigm that currently prevails. This article reviews the current policy paradigm and framework as reflected in the literature, elaborates on the central research question relating to CI, social capital and sustainability, and hypothesises on what an alternative ICT policy development framework might look like. The intention of the article is to generate discussion. The research project itself is still in the early stages. Definitions It is important to first define what it meant by the key terms used in the research and this article. ICT is used in the sense of its actual use, that is, the ability to access, adapt, and create new knowledge using new information and communication technology (Warshauer 2003, p.9) for social, political, and economic development purposes. Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

3 Social capital in this paper refers to the resources or assets (Mathie, Cunningham 2002) that accumulate in a community as a result of the level and extent of trust, networks, reciprocity, norms of behaviour (Kay A. 2005, p. 163, Warschauer 2003 p. 154, Lin 2001) measured through proxy / indirect indicators specific to the community, its development related activities, and context (Krishna 2002, p. 67, Fine 2001 p. 103). Community Informatics: Informatics has been defined as the capacity to act on and through the technology with which one is working (Gurstein 2000). CI has a specific goal to design and utilise ICT to effectively support communities in achieving their goals. The community itself is involved in the adaptation of ICT to their purposes including advocacy, local information on community resources and services available, community mapping for community planning and development (demographics, geography). Applications which integrate the community into broader processes such as e-commerce, e-government, e-governance, e-learning, e- health that extend beyond community boundaries but which are key to community development are also included (Gurstein 2000, p. 1). Technical capacity in a community context refers to the opportunity to acquire, and the existence of, skills and competencies that enable people to use ICT for their chosen purpose, from basic awareness through to electronic literacy (Warschauer 2003, p.111), that is, computer literacy (e.g. how to use standard functions such as search), information literacy (e.g. how to formulate a search and critically evaluate what is presented), multi-media literacy (presentation), and effective online communication skills. Economic capacity means the scope, within the economic structures of which the community is a part, to achieve a return on investment, in economic development terms, from ICT. Sustainability of community ICT4D is indicated by ongoing effective use by the community for development social, political, economic - that is, The capacity and opportunity to successfully integrate ICTs into the accomplishment of self or collaboratively identified goals (Gurstein M. 2003, p.8) supported by sustainable financial and human resources. Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

4 The techno-economic based approach to ICT4D In economic terms, the return on investment in ICT for development is increasing both at a macro level in terms of building national capabilities and at a micro, community initiative level as the body of experience grows. Nevertheless access to and benefits from ICT are still limited to a subset of the population in any given developing country and in developed countries as well. Without a goal of universal access and effective use (Gurstein 2003) decisions relating to ICT4D or e-development will always be based on tradeoffs which result in exclusion of some segments of society. To answer this challenge we need to look at ICT4D holistically, that is, from national policy through to community implementation and outcomes in order to strengthen the link between these two ends of the spectrum. As the following diagram attempts to illustrate, there is a meta-process which currently dominates in the realm of ICT4D, and which reflects a developed country paradigm based on a top-down approach to policy. Current ICT4D Policy Development Framework Develop ICT policy aimed at macro-economic growth with a bias to pro-poor growth Develop specific ICT strategies for key sectors Create enabling conditions in the market Build national capabilities Design projects consistent with policy and strategy Measure results and growth in inputs and outputs Figure 1: Current ICT4D policy development framework Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

5 The current ICT4D policy framework is very evident in the national ICT policies and strategies of most developing countries who tend to follow the formula s proscribed by multi-lateral agencies in particular the World Bank. Policy tends to focus on macro issues including creating the enabling environment (industry regulation and privatisation, infrastructure development, human resources) and reducing transaction costs, increasing transparency, efficiency and access to services through e-commerce and e-government. Within this landscape there are specific policy issues to be addressed such as universal access, gender equity, government subsidy, and local content focus. Whether ICT policy and strategies are formulated separate to or integrated with sectoral policies and strategies (WSIS 2003, DAC 2005, Sayo, Chacko, Pradhan eds. 2004), it is generally agreed that national priorities for poverty reduction should be established first, including specific prop-poor growth initiatives, and that broad based participation at all levels is facilitated in the development of strategies (Schware 2005, DAC 2005, Labelle 2005). In terms of actual policy and strategy choices, there is a high degree of consistency, in particular with regard to the role of Government. Government s can play an indirect and direct role in promoting ICT (Mistry 2005). The indirect role involves creating the institutional environment (legal, regulatory, incentives) that encourages local and foreign direct investment in the sector. The direct role involves direct aid or subsidy to industry or communities, to fund ICT projects or as part of a public private partnership (involving the private sector, civil society, NGOs and CBOs), to address areas which do not meet market criteria for investment. The literature generally proposes that both roles are appropriate in developing countries however the direct role, in particular donor assistance, should be minimised (Schware 2005, Sayo, Chacko, Pradhan eds. 2004). The role of Government, whether direct or indirect, is predicated on financial selfsufficiency at a community level even where the upfront infrastructure investment (from rural telecommunications to an individual community telecentre) is subsidised. The need to generate economic growth without compromising societal equity Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

6 illustrates two potentially competing priorities for policy makers (Sayo, Chacko, Pradhan eds. 2004, p. 26). In general the top-down / trickle down philosophy dominates the literature in spite of increasing pressure in global forums to deliver universal access and full inclusion (WSIS 2003) and to specifically target the poor as distinct from broad development goals or general economic growth (DAC 2005). At a micro level the result is an ongoing level of exclusion from participation in the digital economy or information society or at best a lesser participation. Introducing a social dimension It is possible to conceive of an alternative ICT4D framework based on a social paradigm which emphasises instead a community centred approach to development of national ICT4D policy and strategies and which aims for greater sustainability of ICT4D at a community level. This in turn results in greater inclusion and participation of communities leading to increased benefits in terms of development outcomes, both for individual communities and the nation collectively. However, in order to work outwards from the community, we need to start at the core that is with the structures and resources that exist in the community. CI is being positioned as an alternative to the techno-economic approach to ICT at a community level, both in developed and developing countries (Day, Schuler 2004). The question that this research project will focus on, is whether CI facilitates the causal link between social capital and sustainability of community ICT by focusing on enabling and extending existing community structures through ICT so that the community remains the central agent in the process and is able to draw on reserves of social capital to bridge any technical or economic capacity gap that may inhibit the progress or success of the ICT initiative. Detailed field research will help determine which ingredients social capital, technical and economic capacity are necessary and/or sufficient for sustainability of community ICT4D. At this stage of my research however, I am working on the Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

7 assumption that ultimately all three are necessary however the question that I will ultimately attempt to answer is whether social capital combined with a CI approach, is a more important building block in the process to sustainability than the other ingredients. Its is asserted that ICT s potency to cause change is closely tied to the society in which it is deployed and, furthermore, attention should be placed upon both the technology and the society equally Technology possesses no quality that necessitates its particular form of use or societal level consequence. (Leaning 2005) The method behind CI works on the premise that ICT which is embedded in existing community structures has greater benefits in terms of community development than externally designed ICT based structures or network models because it is able to utilise the social capital embedded in those structures. The methodology is implied in the literature and can be summarised as follows: 1. Understand the community and the social capital bonding, bridging, and linking (Woolcock 2002, p.23) - that exists by virtue of its existing structures and relationships (formal and informal) and build effective leadership or agency capacity. 2. Introduce ICT as a tool to help the community meet their needs and aspirations as they perceive them using existing social capital (Krishna 2002, p.85) and targeting effective use (Gurstein 2003) not simply basic access. 3. Support the community with the necessary inputs to seed the initiative and continue to invest not in ICT but in the development outcomes that result so as to make the case as broad based as possible and enhance sustainability. The lessons learned and best practice guidelines from the plethora of case study analysis done in the field of ICT4D definitely allude to the criticality of a community centred approach to ICT4D if not referring explicitly to CI, for example: As a starting point ensure that the initiative addresses a real need of the target communities (Schware 2005). Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

8 Focus on how to use ICT to improve community outcomes, not simply on bringing ICT to the poor, that is, avoid technology driven projects designed externally (Courtright 2004) without a socially embedded purpose (Granqvist 2005). Leverage existing community resources organisational, leadership, and skills and involve as many groups in the community as possible (Warcshauer 2001, 2003, Turner-Lee & Pinkett 2004). Use participatory approaches which encourage the community to design the implementation based on their existing networks and interactions and to take ownership (Marshall 2004, Granqvist 2005). An alternative policy development framework As such, the emerging development of CIS [Community informatics Systems] is leading the reframing of concepts of Digital Divide from access and the marketing of computers/internet.., into qualitative issues affecting the use of ICT as an enabler of all aspects of community life including economic, cultural, and social development as well as democratic empowerment. (Taylor, Marshall 2004, p. 203) If a CI approach to community ICT4D increases sustainability, policy makers in developing countries and multi-lateral agencies must take this into account not simply in the content of policies but in their whole approach to policy development. This suggests an alternative policy framework for ICT4D which combines top-down and bottom-up policy and strategies as illustrated below. Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

9 Alternative ICT4D Policy Development Framework Shape development policy and strategies top down and bottom up Create enabling conditions based on criteria of social inclusion Build partnerships to sustain initiatives based on goals and who has a stake in outcomes Build capability to address community needs Exploit social capital in the community to ICTenable existing community structures using a CI approach Measure improvement in development outcomes and social inclusion Figure 3: Alternative community centred ICT4D policy development framework The framework suggested above implies three fundamental shifts: First, at a community level focus on specific community needs and aspirations rather than formula solutions. The goal is social inclusion, not simply access. Second, rebalance investment at macro and micro levels based on broad social, economic, and political development outcomes that can be achieved as distinct from purely economic inputs and outputs. Third, structure funding and partnerships based on who has an interest in the outcomes targeted. National ICT policy in most developing countries promotes both national capacity building and local community access and education but is severely resource constrained in implementing the enabling strategies. Priority is given to the macro enabling strategies and heavy reliance is placed on partners and donors for the Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

10 micro level initiatives which follow a standard formula e.g. self-sustaining community telecentres. The research project will hopefully indicate how a better outcome can be achieved even within these constraints. Conclusion The way in which a particular problem is defined leads to a specific policy solution (Servon 2002, p. 6). Servon is referring to the problem of the digital divide however this is one aspect of the broader question of ICT4D. Development discourse as it relates to ICT4D tends to be dominated by a western, donor community set of values and priorities which in turn exclude and further marginalise those in developing countries and communities (Thompson 2004). If the underlying drivers or issues which ICT4D policy aims to address are defined at a macro-level (e.g. economic growth, the drive to e-development in both the private and public sector, infrastructure and access) then policy solutions will be geared to enabling infrastructure and capabilities at a national level and the process will engage those with the resources and interest to deliver these solutions. If on the other hand the drivers or issues of ICT4D are defined from a community perspective, then the process will engage those with an interest in development outcomes at a community level. The challenge is how to move away from an either or choice to a more balanced model. References Courtright C. 2004, informationalizing El Salvador: participatory design of a national information and ICT strategy, in Day P. & Schuler D. (eds) 2004, Community Practice in the Network Society Local Action / Global Interaction, Routledge, London Day P. & Schuler D. (eds) 2004, Community Practice in the Network Society Local Action / Global Interaction, Routledge, London Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

11 Development Co-operation Directorate Development Assistance Committee 2005, DAC Network on Poverty Reduction Integrating ICTs into Development Cooperation, Chapter 4, Good Practice Paper on ICTs for Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction, The DAC Journal 2005 Vol 6 No. 3 pp , OECD 2005 [online] [Accessed 22 April 2006] Fine B. 2001, Social Capital versus Social Theory : Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millenium, Routledge, London 2001 Granqvist M. 2005, Looking Critically at ICT4Dev: the Case of Lincos, Journal of Community Informatics, Vol 2, No [online] [Accessed 12 November 2005] Gurstein M. 2000, Community Informatics: Enabling Communities with Information and Communications Technologies, Idea Group Publishing UK, USA 2000 Gurstein M 2003, Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the Digital Divide, First Monday Vo. 8 No. 12 December 2003, [online] [Accessed 9 May 2006] Kay A. 2005, Social capital, the social economy and community development, Community Development Journal Vol 4 No. 2 April 2006 pp Krishna A. 2002, Active Social Capital, Tracing the Roots of Development and Democracy, Columia University Press, New York Labelle R. 2005, ICT Policy Formulation and e-strategy Development A Comprehensive Guidebook, APDIP and Elsevier, Bangkok 2005 Leaning M. 2005, The modal nature of ICT: Challenging historical interpretation of the social understanding and appropriation of ICT, Journal of Community Informatics, Vol 2 No [online] [Accessed 13 November 2005] Lin N. 2001, Social Capital A Theory of Social Structure and Action, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA Marshall A. 2004, ICTs for health promotion in the community: a participative approach, in Day P. & Schuler D. (eds) 2004, Community Practice in the Network Society Local Action / Global Interaction, Routledge, London Mathie A., Cunningham G. 2002, From Clients to Citizens: Asset Based Community Development as a Strategy for Community-Driven Development, [Online] [Accessed 7 May 2006] Mistry J. J. 2005, A Conceptual Framework for the Role of Government in Bridging the Digital Divide, Journal of Global Information Technology Management. Marietta: 2005.Vol.8, Iss. 3; pg. 28, 19 pgs Partners in Micro development Inc of 12

12 Sayo P., Chacko J.G., Pradhan G. (eds) 2004, ICT Policies and e-strategies in the Asia Pacific A critical assessment of the way forward, APDIP & Elsevier, India [online] [Accessed 22 October 2005] Schware R. (ed) 2005, E-Development: From Excitement to Effectiveness, World Bank Group, Washington DC, 2005 Servon L.J. 2002, Bridging the Digital Divide Technology, Community, and Public Policy, Blackwell USA Taylor W. & Marshall S. 2004, Community Informatics Systems: a meeting place for useful research, in Day P. & Schuler D. (eds) 2004, Community Practice in the Network Society Local Action / Global Interaction, Routledge, London Thompson M. 2004, Discourse, development and the digital divide : ICT and the World Bank, Review of African Political Economy, March 2004, Vol. 99, pp Turner-Lee N.E. & Pinkett R.D. 2004, An asset-based approach to community building and community technology, in Day P. & Schuler D. (eds) 2004, Community Practice in the Network Society Local Action / Global Interaction, Routledge, London Warschauer M. 2001, Social capital and access, in Universal Access in the Information Society, Heidelberg: Nov Vol. 2, Iss. 4; p Warschauer M. (2003), Technology and Social Inclusion, The MIT Press, Massachusetts USA Woolcock M. 2002, Social capital in theory and practice: where do we stand?, in Isham J., Kelly T., Ramaswamy S (eds), Social Capital and Economic Development Well-being in Developing Countries, Edward Elgar UK, USA pp World Summit on the Information Society 2003, Plan of Action, Geneva 2003,[online] !!PDF-E.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2006] Partners in Micro development Inc of 12