Kentaro Toyama argues that so-called ICT4D (Information and Communication Technologies for Development) doesn’t ensure the alleviation of poverty. He presents a long list of failed projects – like telecenters and OLPC – to substantiate the argument. He says:
-
Technology—no matter how well designed—is only a magnifier of human intent and capacity. It is not a substitute.
-
The myth of scale is the religion of telecenter proponents, who believe that bringing the Internet into villages is enough to transform them.
-
When a village has ready access to a PC, the dominant use is by young men playing games, watching movies, or consuming adult content.
-
Computers, guns, factories, and democracy are powerful tools, but the forces that determine how they’re used ultimately are human.
Kentaro Toyama’s provocative article has been published in the current issue of Boston Review. Stalwarts are also participating in this debate. Read the full article and comments of others.
5 Comments
Parvez Iftikhar
I read Kentaro’s article and posted my comment there, which I reproduce here:
I agree that technology cannot change people magically but I do not agree that technology cannot be used to make positive changes in the lives of have-nots.
To say that since a poor farmer, using ICT, from a remote village can never raise as much money as an urban/educated dweller in 24 hours, thus its useless to invest in ICT for him, is weird. I say, provide him the technology so that at least he has equal opportunity of doing so. There are countless examples where the poor found good uses of technology in cities (I personally know plumbers, cooks, gardeners, carpenters … who have increased their productivity – and consequently incomes – by a factor of at least 4 by use of mobile phones). If the rich in cities can play games on PCs and still manage to improve their lives through ICTs, so would the poor. If the city dwellers keep discovering ways of using ICTs for their benefits every day, so would the rural folk – provided ICTs reach them.
My message is: don’t deny technology to poor even if they would fumble (and in many cases fail) with it in the beginning.
Cool Knight
Rural poor should not be denied technology, food, education or health facilities. I fully agree.
But these are conflicting interests. When you offer one you deny something else to rural poor or someone else.
The question what cost justifies the technology to rural poor? Should we build a telecenter at a cost of USD 1,000 diverting that money from the health system? Should we keep on pumping money to a failed experiment?
Those are the difficult questions to answer.
Cool Knight
The above response is for Mr. Parvez Iftikhar, not to the post.
Jacob Varghese
An extremely well balanced article. A good guide to all who are well meaning about using technology for poverty alleviation. The author is not ruling out technology from the scene. He is only discouraging the urge of people to ‘scale’ faster using technology without real human-touch in the background to support the scale.
Workshop: Digital Tools for Strengthening Public Discourse
Today, LIRNEasia hosted a workshop to launch digital tools created by Watchdog Sri Lanka, funded by GIZ’s Strengthening Social Cohesion and Peace in Sri Lanka (SCOPE) programme. Researchers, practitioners, activists and journalists attended to learn about these tools, and how they can potentially help them in their own lines of work.
Election Misinformation in Sri Lanka: Report Summary
Election misinformation poses a credible threat to Sri Lanka’s democracy. While it is expected that any electorate hardly operates with perfect information, our research finds that the presence of an election misinformation industry in Sri Lanka producing and disseminating viral false assertions has the potential to distort constituents’ information diets and sway their electoral choices.
Election Misinformation in South and South-East Asia: Report Summary
A powerful weapon in a time of global democratic backsliding, election misinformation may undermine democracy via a range of mechanisms. Election misinformation may influence an electorate to cast their ballots for candidates they otherwise might not have on the basis of incorrect information about a country’s economy, the candidates, or some other phenomenon.
Links
User Login
Themes
Social
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Contact
12, Balcombe Place, Colombo 08
Sri Lanka
+94 (0)11 267 1160
+94 (0)11 267 5212
info [at] lirneasia [dot] net
Copyright © 2024 LIRNEasia
a regional ICT policy and regulation think tank active across the Asia Pacific