I've been following GKD discussion for a while and noticed the implicit tensions between top down, grand plan initiatives and those that are bottom up and "closer to the grassroots" approaches. Let me provide a perspective originating from a very different context from that faced by most "developing" countries, but one which is very informative nevertheless. I hope its relevence to GKD issues will become painfully clear. I live and work in the Northern Territory of Australia - a region with less than 200,000 inhabitants and more than AU$ 2 billion in direct and indirect funding from the Australian Federal Government. Most of this funding is provided to address the disadvantage of Aboriginal Australians in the NT i.e. less than 50,000 persons. Given the scale of this funding and the population base, one might expect a great deal of improvement in the health and social circumstances of Aboriginal Territorians. Sadly, this is not the case. If anything I believe the 20 year shorter lifespan of these people (compared to other Australians) is diminishing. Anyone who works on these communities will see dysfunctionality at frightening levels. I fear we are on a downward spiral. How could such vast funding for such a small number of people achieve so little? The answer is in the Northern suburbs of Darwin where this money either directly or indirectly pays the mortgages of the army of bureaucrats employed to administer it. There is an additional army of consultants (of which I am one) employed to provide advice and expertise in the application of these funds. And another group of contractors, building companies, transport companies etc. also relies on this gravy train. I'm sure this situation will resonate with the experiences of others on this list. In the case of telecommunications, my experience has always been that small, single task projects have succeeded (at least long enough to make a difference), while the grand, top down, megalithic projects bog down in committees, consultancies, high level policy and the political objectives of the incumbent government. The only people who win from these projects are the people on the payrolls. I was delighted to read of the Internet connection-in-a-wall installed in the remote village. What a wonderful story to hear of kids exploring and learning about this incredible tool. Where I work, the health, police and education departments will (one day real soon now) roll out separate hardware and software to remote clinics with no regard for efficiencies in purchase, common support and maintenance or even basic bandwidth planning. Why should they? There would be fewer empires to build and less promotions for the people who really count. (In my most cynical moments I have created the acronym PWRC for such people). I was also delighted to read Chetan Sharma's accounts of some very effective small projects. That was truly wonderful. My conclusion from my side of the world is to act on my instincts and do whatever I am capable of in the short term while I am still capable and with whatever resources I currently have. That is, I am convinced that putting an Internet connection in a remote community now is more beneficial than waiting for the video link that may happen real soon now - after the policy boys have looked at the business case, the election timing is right, the carrier deal is locked in etc etc. No doubt my Internet connection may not be working in 12 months time, but that is enough to change the understanding of hundreds of people. In addition, when the video link does arrive there will be plenty of limitations to threaten its longevity as well. As you can see, I have very little confidence left in highly centralised and abundantly resourced projects delivering anything useful to remote communities in any useful time frame. In addition, the likelihood that any resources will be left to implement anything on the ground after the committees, managers and consultants have been paid is highly dubious. In the Northern Territory we have an entire state and a $2 billion budget dedicated to the illusion of benefiting disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians. Communications is only one facet of this illusion. I would like to end on a more positive note and encourage people to work effectively at the grass roots to achieve what change they can. Yes it may be inefficient and temporary and so much more could be achieved if a little more was achieved at the higher levels. But you cannot rely on the latter. I have put communications into may remote places and my greatest thrill is to see the effect it has on people who experience it for the first time. I have shown central australian aborigines web cams in Antarctica, provided access to wonderful, free medical databases to remote doctors, listened to the screams of delight as people 1,000 km from their children talk to them at their school and sat amazed as 3/4 of a town of 1,000 people waited outside the door. There is much that can be done on even limited funds and the examples provided on this list have been very uplifting. Please keep working in this way. You won't be rich materially but there is no doubt it is very rewarding in its own way. _____________________________ Dr. Perry Morrison Director Morrison Associates Pty Ltd ------------ ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.globalknowledge.org>
