1. What is the value of analyzing the socio-economic impact of ICT in rural areas?
Error message
Notice: serialize(): __sleep should return an array only containing the names of instance-variables to serialize in DrupalDatabaseCache->set() (line 465 of /var/www/html/includes/cache.inc).
Benjamin Kwasi AddomThe Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA)Netherlands
I think we first need to know information needs of the rural communities. If we don't know the information needs of the communities and we ge ahead to implement any ICT project (as is the case in most ICT projects in rural areas), it will be difficult for us to analyze the socio-economic impacts of the project.
So:
1) What are the development needs of these rural areas?
2) What is the existing information structure of the rural area? - what are the existing potentials of the people to access information/knowledge?
3) What are the 'rooms' for improving information access in these areas?
If these are answered first before new ICT projects are implemented, we can analyze the impacts on these areas.
Ben, you are absolutely right. The first step is to understand what is it that poor rural people NEED and also understand what is that they WANT.
It would be nice to hear your views as to why it is important to assess the socio-economic impact of ICTs in rural areas, considering that if something does not work, common sense tells us to stop investing and finding out what is not working and fixing it!!!!
Good thinking Ben.
However, you have advanced the issue of determining the information needs of the rural communities ; but what approach should be used to determine the information needs? I suggest that the information needs of the rural communities or any other settings, should be participatorily determined and addressed if one has got to achieve sustainable ict initiatives in the communities. I think this approach would go alongway in eliciting ownership,patronange and cost sharing for the ict use in agricultural development.
Otherwise the ict related projects in rural areas shall alwys be seen as white elephants and the equipment will always remain covered in their boxes upon delivery to the beneficairy communities.
fred (Rural Economist).
"You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics" quipped the economist Robert Solow in the year he won the Nobel Prize (1987). Is there any evidence that he was wrong? Certainly there is no change in rates of economic growth, or efficiency, in apparently highly computerized sectors such as banks or Western shops in the last couple of decades. So what should one look for in the impact of ICT in rural areas? I assume it is separated from other communications channels.
In contrast to ICT, the Nobel-prize winning concept of Solow's - the determinants of economic growth can be separated out into increases in inputs (labour and capital) and technical progress, but 80% of the growth is attributable to technical progress - applies exactly to agriculture, where new varieties and better agronomy have a strongly techical basis.
This is a very interesting comment, reminding me how many years have passed since I last debated Solow's Paradox. Thank you for making me think again!
I and others do not agree with your statement about growth and computerized sectors. Studies have shown since the 1990s that investment in IT has a positive relationship with productivity, particularly in service industries. However, as you point out these would be based in developed economies, so we have to question the relevance in our discussion here.
Another intersting read is "Productivity and ICT: a review of the evidence" by M. Draca, R. Sadun, and J. Van Reenen (2006).
For our current online discussion, I think it is very important to point out that ICT is not only a matter of the "T", technology. It is necessary to view ICT as a process using technology that may (or may not) improve the movement of information in such a way as to enhance decision making, empower individuals, etc.
There is agreement that the the Cobb-Douglas model of economic growth applies to agriculture. New agricultural technologies impact total factor productivity (TFP). But then what is an agricultural technology? Even limited to crop varieties and agronomy, it certainly includes particular cases of ICT these days. For example, the field servers used in Asia http://wgrass.media.osaka-cu.ac.jp/gisideas08/viewpaper.php?id=266 I would also argue that our definition needs to be even wider in the case of economic analysis of factors that make up TFP in agriculture. (My thesis was on trade-induced learning in the agriculture sector.)
I hope this sounds reasonable, even if you do not agree. In the mean time I will try to recall more of my work in this area. ;-)
Jenny AkerTufts UniversityUnited States of America
While I agree in theory that ICTs can increase productivity, and there is value in measuring this, I think that there are 2 challenges:
1. GDP, growth, productivity are all measures of producer surplus, not consumer surplus. To the extent that ICTs have an impact upon consumer surplus (which they can), this won't be captured in the GDP or growth measures.
2. I think that looking at links between GDP and ICT penetration can be a bit misleading, and many of our studies should focus more on the micro level. For example, Niger has had mobile phones since 2001, yet is still ranked the poorest country on the UN's HDI. DOes this mean that cell phones haven't improved productivity in Niger? Not necessarily. We can't observe what Niger would have been like WITHOUT cell phones -- which is the relevant question here. Incomes could have been lower.
I think that finding (or showing) GDP/productivity-ICT links might be elusive, which is okay -- if we focus on more micro-level, and ICT-specific project impacts.
Path - how about broadening our view of ICT beyond just computers.... what about rural radio, what about mobile telephony, what about blending old and new ICTs....
*Information is about personalization. Radios/TVs does not offer personalization as they are general broadcast.
Everyone wants to know solutions about his individual problems. Its about "I", "ME", "MY"
Where would I get best price for my crop?
What should I do to prevent a particular disease?
Where would I get loan at the cheapes rate?
What is the Weather forecast for MY location?
*Information should be in the pocket all the time. Information should be stored and available for consumption later - Only mobile phone offers this facility. TV/Radios does not. There are areas in Developing world, where electricity is available for not more then few hours in a day. How would other mediums work??
*Other tools (TV/Radio/Computers) have existed for long. However, Mobile phones have become preferred tool to consume information. Developing countries Rural area has far greater concentration of mobile phones then Computers, Sattelite TV then National TV
I want to spend a word in favor of Radio. This media is more modern and flexible than what we think. This is particularly true in developing countries, where Rural and Community Radio stations are spread around most of the countries.
Radio can in fact be highly "customized" as for content production and distribution. Thanks to the mobile telephony the virtual circle between radio broadcasters and their public is now closed. The communication is nowadays a two-ways communication flow which starts from the radio, arrives to the listeners being they single or group of people or entire villages, and comes back to the broadcasters via a phone call or an sms.
This means that through Community radios, which are small radio stations scattered around rural areas, created by the community to serve the community, it is possible to debate, train or just provide information about many topics of common interest.
Radio can offer other main benefits: very low cost equipment, large distribution, no skills needed to listen to, and large economies of scale.
I totally agree with Roxy suggesting we should use more radio as a natural complement to other tools, like mobile phones and Internet.
I think we first need to know information needs of the rural communities. If we don't know the information needs of the communities and we ge ahead to implement any ICT project (as is the case in most ICT projects in rural areas), it will be difficult for us to analyze the socio-economic impacts of the project.
So:
1) What are the development needs of these rural areas?
2) What is the existing information structure of the rural area? - what are the existing potentials of the people to access information/knowledge?
3) What are the 'rooms' for improving information access in these areas?
If these are answered first before new ICT projects are implemented, we can analyze the impacts on these areas.
Thanks
Ben
Ben, you are absolutely right. The first step is to understand what is it that poor rural people NEED and also understand what is that they WANT.
It would be nice to hear your views as to why it is important to assess the socio-economic impact of ICTs in rural areas, considering that if something does not work, common sense tells us to stop investing and finding out what is not working and fixing it!!!!
Good thinking Ben.
However, you have advanced the issue of determining the information needs of the rural communities ; but what approach should be used to determine the information needs? I suggest that the information needs of the rural communities or any other settings, should be participatorily determined and addressed if one has got to achieve sustainable ict initiatives in the communities. I think this approach would go alongway in eliciting ownership,patronange and cost sharing for the ict use in agricultural development.
Otherwise the ict related projects in rural areas shall alwys be seen as white elephants and the equipment will always remain covered in their boxes upon delivery to the beneficairy communities.
fred (Rural Economist).
"You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics" quipped the economist Robert Solow in the year he won the Nobel Prize (1987). Is there any evidence that he was wrong? Certainly there is no change in rates of economic growth, or efficiency, in apparently highly computerized sectors such as banks or Western shops in the last couple of decades. So what should one look for in the impact of ICT in rural areas? I assume it is separated from other communications channels.
In contrast to ICT, the Nobel-prize winning concept of Solow's - the determinants of economic growth can be separated out into increases in inputs (labour and capital) and technical progress, but 80% of the growth is attributable to technical progress - applies exactly to agriculture, where new varieties and better agronomy have a strongly techical basis.
This is a very interesting comment, reminding me how many years have passed since I last debated Solow's Paradox. Thank you for making me think again!
I and others do not agree with your statement about growth and computerized sectors. Studies have shown since the 1990s that investment in IT has a positive relationship with productivity, particularly in service industries. However, as you point out these would be based in developed economies, so we have to question the relevance in our discussion here.
Another intersting read is "Productivity and ICT: a review of the evidence" by M. Draca, R. Sadun, and J. Van Reenen (2006).
For our current online discussion, I think it is very important to point out that ICT is not only a matter of the "T", technology. It is necessary to view ICT as a process using technology that may (or may not) improve the movement of information in such a way as to enhance decision making, empower individuals, etc.
There is agreement that the the Cobb-Douglas model of economic growth applies to agriculture. New agricultural technologies impact total factor productivity (TFP). But then what is an agricultural technology? Even limited to crop varieties and agronomy, it certainly includes particular cases of ICT these days. For example, the field servers used in Asia http://wgrass.media.osaka-cu.ac.jp/gisideas08/viewpaper.php?id=266 I would also argue that our definition needs to be even wider in the case of economic analysis of factors that make up TFP in agriculture. (My thesis was on trade-induced learning in the agriculture sector.)
I hope this sounds reasonable, even if you do not agree. In the mean time I will try to recall more of my work in this area. ;-)
While I agree in theory that ICTs can increase productivity, and there is value in measuring this, I think that there are 2 challenges:
1. GDP, growth, productivity are all measures of producer surplus, not consumer surplus. To the extent that ICTs have an impact upon consumer surplus (which they can), this won't be captured in the GDP or growth measures.
2. I think that looking at links between GDP and ICT penetration can be a bit misleading, and many of our studies should focus more on the micro level. For example, Niger has had mobile phones since 2001, yet is still ranked the poorest country on the UN's HDI. DOes this mean that cell phones haven't improved productivity in Niger? Not necessarily. We can't observe what Niger would have been like WITHOUT cell phones -- which is the relevant question here. Incomes could have been lower.
I think that finding (or showing) GDP/productivity-ICT links might be elusive, which is okay -- if we focus on more micro-level, and ICT-specific project impacts.
Path - how about broadening our view of ICT beyond just computers.... what about rural radio, what about mobile telephony, what about blending old and new ICTs....
*Information is about personalization. Radios/TVs does not offer personalization as they are general broadcast.
Everyone wants to know solutions about his individual problems. Its about "I", "ME", "MY"
Where would I get best price for my crop?
What should I do to prevent a particular disease?
Where would I get loan at the cheapes rate?
What is the Weather forecast for MY location?
*Information should be in the pocket all the time. Information should be stored and available for consumption later - Only mobile phone offers this facility. TV/Radios does not. There are areas in Developing world, where electricity is available for not more then few hours in a day. How would other mediums work??
*Other tools (TV/Radio/Computers) have existed for long. However, Mobile phones have become preferred tool to consume information. Developing countries Rural area has far greater concentration of mobile phones then Computers, Sattelite TV then National TV
I want to spend a word in favor of Radio. This media is more modern and flexible than what we think. This is particularly true in developing countries, where Rural and Community Radio stations are spread around most of the countries.
Radio can in fact be highly "customized" as for content production and distribution. Thanks to the mobile telephony the virtual circle between radio broadcasters and their public is now closed. The communication is nowadays a two-ways communication flow which starts from the radio, arrives to the listeners being they single or group of people or entire villages, and comes back to the broadcasters via a phone call or an sms.
This means that through Community radios, which are small radio stations scattered around rural areas, created by the community to serve the community, it is possible to debate, train or just provide information about many topics of common interest.
Radio can offer other main benefits: very low cost equipment, large distribution, no skills needed to listen to, and large economies of scale.
I totally agree with Roxy suggesting we should use more radio as a natural complement to other tools, like mobile phones and Internet.