Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Chetan Sharma points out that technology by itself may not generate jobs. But entrepreneurship certainly does--and the examples of Germany and Finland he points to may reflect lack of an entrepreneurial culture more than anything about technology. And technology can play a role in helping create entrepreneurial opportunities or in supporting small enterprises. The Sanchalak's that run ITC echoupals generate additional income from their entrepreneurial role as the computer hosts, the kiosk and PTO entrepreneurs in India phone and (growing) Internet networks are a similar example; so too the village phone entrepreneurs in Bangladesh and South Africa and now Uganda. Both the need for shared-access points--the dominant model for access to connectivity among the very poor and even the not so poor in developing countries (even in middle-class, urban Peru, for example) and the entrepreneurial opportunities such needs create and can create are a prime example of how the spread of ICT networks can help stimulate job creation. Allen L. Hammond Vice President for Innovation Special Projects World Resources Institute 10 G Street NE Washington, DC 20002 USA V (202) 729- F (202) 729-7775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wri.org www.digitaldividend.org On 11/8/04, Chetan Sharma asked: Why do small European economies such as Germany and France, who have always embraced technology and have such a huge technological advancement, have major employment problems? Why does Finland, despite home-grown Nokia, continue to languish with unemployment and joblessness? If we do not have jobs of any nature--if we do not even have stable livelihoods--then what has been the worth of Globalization and technological advancement? ..snip... This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Dear GKD Members, Historical evidence suggests that technological developments of all kinds can make improvements in the process, time management, convenience for the consumer. However, to the best of my knowledge, no technological innovation has demonstrated enhanced employability of the people. I do not want to start my postings on a negative note; but if we talk of the poor then we must talk about the poorest of the poor who probably do not have the education, nor tools nor technologies for eking out livelihods for themselves. It was widely perceived in my country (India) when we initiated the reform, liberalization process and consequently the globalization process, that poverty would decline, and uneven development would get bridged. Ten years later, we still find a very high degree of joblessness. Worse yet, there been a complete erosion of employment security--employment now tends to be casual, temporary, sub-standard and lower-paying than before. It seems ironic that a country with a huge population of over 1 billion people, a resilient economy, abundant natural resources, a just and equitable democratic Government, has over 30-35% marginal/partial employment, 60% self-employed (most of whom are poor), and only 10% regular employees of which two-fifths are employed by the public sector. Why does that high level of unemployment persist? Why do small European economies such as Germany and France, who have always embraced technology and have such a huge technological advancement, have major employment problems? Why does Finland, despite home-grown Nokia, continue to languish with unemployment and joblessness? If we do not have jobs of any nature--if we do not even have stable livelihoods--then what has been the worth of Globalization and technological advancement? It was said that when economies transitioned from agrarian economies to manufacturing and then to services, that huge opportunities would get created for the poor across the globe. Regretably, nothing of this sort has happened, at least in India where it ought to have happened. So should we not hesitate to dig even deeper into the African and Latin American malaise? The truth is that Indian BPO and technological advancements in ICT have benefitted only a very small percentage of the elite, English speaking, highly educated Engineers and Professionals. Vast masses of Indians who neither have English nor technological prowess have remained untouched by the BPO and ICT surge. Let us examine the case of the Apparel and Ready-Made-Garments sector where a lot of modernization occured driven by illustrous Fashion Designers, supported by the Global Chain of Designer Labels: GAP, Marks Spencer and hundreds of them. As a consequence, huge increases in the production of Ready-Made-Garments were reported from India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, three South Asian countries who manufactured large quantities of ready made garments. Yet rapid growth of the Ready-Made-Garment Industry did not improve the state of the employees, especially women employees who predominate the Garment Industry. The women faced retrenchment and statutory benefits were denied to them. They faced, and continue to face, erratic work schedules, reduced wages and lack of any form of Decent long term sustainable livelihoods. (SOURCE--UNCTAD, UNIFEM) Therefore we need to examine the covergence of Globalization, Technology and Poverty with greater innovation and greater Empathy. As our Prime Minister Dr. ManMohan Singh, a noted Economist in his own right, says: Globalization with a human face. I believe Globalization largely means Business and indeed Business stands to benefit most by Globalization. Yet there are Business Approaches and Business Models that can and are making a lot of difference. There has been no dearth of outstanding businesses that are also philanthropists all across the world especially in the West--in USA, Europe. There are innumerable examples of awesome Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives all across the Globe. I intend to cover many of these in my subsequent postings. However, for all of us who believe in Globalization, Business and Technology, our first and most critical priority ought to be livelihoods and to make these forces work for the poor. If there is no trickle down effect of these three forces -- Globalization, Business, Technology -- to help the poorest of the poor, disadvantaged, disfranchised, women and aged, sick and frail -- then I am afraid it is not going to work. Chetan Sharma-CEO, Datamation-New Delhi (India) www.datamationindia.com Founder-Datamation Foundation Trust (a registered non-profit organization) www.datamationfoundation.org Ph#s 91-11-22167230/22167973/22168017 (M) 91-9811039482 This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
I agree fully that benefits must reach the very poor, whose greatest need is often livelihoods. And you are right that globalization--on the export platfrom model--has so far contributed little to such people. But I do believe that when companies target poor communities as customers, something different happens. Because to succeed, they need to build the capacity to consume in their customers; and to reach those customers, they may need to employ lots of local entrepreneurs, creating jobs; and given how price-sensitive low income customers are, the companies will have to have a compelling value proposition, and price performance ratio, or their customers simply won't buy. In Indian terms, it is the business model of Datamation, of n-Logue, of Drishtee, of Reliance--rather than the out-sourcing or export manufacturing models--than can have impact on poverty. Allen L. Hammond Vice President for Innovation Special Projects World Resources Institute 10 G Street NE Washington, DC 20002 USA V (202) 729- F (202) 729-7775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wri.org www.digitaldividend.org On Monday, November 8, 2004, Chetan Sharma wrote: Historical evidence suggests that technological developments of all kinds can make improvements in the process, time management, convenience for the consumer. However, to the best of my knowledge, no technological innovation has demonstrated enhanced employability of the people. I do not want to start my postings on a negative note; but if we talk of the poor then we must talk about the poorest of the poor who probably do not have the education, nor tools nor technologies for eking out livelihods for themselves. ..snip... If we do not have jobs of any nature--if we do not even have stable livelihoods--then what has been the worth of Globalization and technological advancement? It was said that when economies transitioned from agrarian economies to manufacturing and then to services, that huge opportunities would get created for the poor across the globe. Regretably, nothing of this sort has happened, at least in India where it ought to have happened. So should we not hesitate to dig even deeper into the African and Latin American malaise? ..snip... This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Dear Colleagues, It would be good if we could agree on a few details. 1. The poor seem to cover a range of peoples. Some are so desperately poor that any kind of direct ownership, or even use, of ICT is impossible. 2. Simply because ownership or direct use of ICT is not relevant for a certain class of poor does not mean that the introduction of such technology into the proximate context of those people will not be helpful to their situation. It is not necessary for every citizen to become a doctor in order for the general state of health to rise with the introduction of some doctors and medical infrastructure. 3. If we want to discuss the *very* poor then ICT may not be very important; it may offer little in the way of short term improvements under any scenario. 4. If we want to discuss technology and business then we may be limited to discussing options which cannot reach the poorest people directly. We may be forced to deal with scenarios that necessarily involve the less poor or even the elite in any particular context. 5. Simply because #4 may be somewhat inevitable due to cost and skill shortages does not mean that ICT can't have a dramatic impact on the circumstances of the poor. For example, the introduction of telecommunications has clearly placed pressure on authoritarian political regimes. This is less true when the ownership and control of telecom is entirely in the hands of the state but it is clearly not necessary for a society to reach the point where everyone can afford a cell phone before liberalized telecom unleashes a torrential array of forces; most of which generate positive long term benefits for the poor. Outliers may muddy the statistics but they provide role models and more. Sure India is an outlier is many dimensions; it has enough poor people to rank low on lots of surveys; it has enough millionaire Ph.D.'s living in California to rank high on others. Big deal. It is a great role model. Nigerians are incredibly annoyed that India sells more software than they do and they can't quite figure out how that happened. South Africa may be so rich and powerful relative to most of Sub-Saharan Africa that it is hard to see how lessons from there can be applied elsewhere until you think globally and notice that there are already companies in SA that have out grown it and are seeking business opportunity in neighboring countries. Sure mega-centers attract capital and brainpower but they also aggregate resources as well, until a point where they inevitably overflow and seek opportunity elsewhere. One of the barriers to development across Sub-Saharan Africa is the inability of the individual countries to coordinate, so that from a business perspective the entire region can be addressed as a single economic opportunity. I think it is no surprise that satellite television and cellular networks are two businesses that have managed to grow pan-African footprints; because they can to some degree escape regulation, and they support business processes which are largely uninterested in artificial boundaries. Other industries will require more supportive governments before the good that they can do can migrate more easily. When we can get to a world with less artificial isolation then the poor will be less isolated as well. This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Having worked for government, as a Development Economist, and as a Management Consultant for an IT MNC, and currently as a board member of an international NGO I feel that I can see both sides to this discussion and below are some of my thoughts. In short: * There is a clear business case for a BOP (bottom of the pyramid) approach. * ICT for development is extremely important. * Businesses are more likely to be efficient service providers * Governments and NGO's can be corrupt and/or ineffective * I have no doubt that women in rural Bangladesh can figure out how to use a mobile phone and will use it to her advantage However, * Environmental and human rights are not best served by the free market * The level playing field is uneven and everyone is not free to choose * MNCs are not transparent * Business seldom reaches out to the poorest or the most disadvantaged. For example, we have to insure that women in seclusion, disadvantaged children, Dalits, or entrepreneurs with no access to capital or IT infrastructure, get access to these technologies -- and access for all is vital in order not to widen the digital divide. ICT really offers great promises and opportunities, and business in this sector can help make globalisation work for all. As such, businesses in this sector should be encouraged to invest in poorer markets. Meanwhile, we will have to be able to discourage monopolistic behaviour, damaging environmental or human right practises, and help disadvantaged groups with access to these technologies - and this business cannot do alone. There are no single simple solutions for all, no vacuums where one actor can be single-handedly responsible for an outcome. Therefore, partnerships and dialog between business, civil society, government, intergovernmental and UN institutions, seeking best practises, etc. will have to continue to be important. Yours, Bettina Gronblom Hammerich This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Fola Odufawa's post on 10/28/04 reminded me of a paper titled The Bangalore Boom: From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation? by AnnaLee Saxenian of the University of California at Berkeley. The URL for this is: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~anno/papers/bangalore_boom.html The Indian experience has been that many of our country's top technology professionals migrated abroad because the opportunity to exploit their talents was not available within India. For example, Vinod Dham who led the team that designed the Pentium chip at Intel once said that he would never have got an opportunity to work on such a significant technology back home in India. This statement was made around six years ago. Over the last few years what we have seen is that many of the professionals who went abroad are coming back, attracted by the growing Indian market and the professional opportunities that are opening up in the country. Venky This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Dear GKD Members, A very interesting analysis has been raised. The two last e-mails from Allen Hammond and Cornelio Hopmann were very interesting and with a great amount of experience and knowledge. Taking into account both points of view, for me it seems that as this type of business and win-win situation is yet in its origins, economic results are yet to be seen. The companies that are actually working and providing services and products to poor people are the ones who in the following years will give us the needed data to answer Cornelio's question (to prove in a quantifiable way the positive impact of ICT for the Poor projects). The proposal from the academic, business and poor peoples' view point seems interesting and worthy, so only action and time might provide us the best approach to this question. All the given examples are the ones that are making history (or not) within this new way of making business. Here, in Argentina, there are also some good and profitable examples going on (although not specificaly with ICT technology). Please see: http://www.ceads.org.ar/casos/2003/casos2003pdf/Edenor-ElectricidadPrepagaE DF.pdf - it is only available in Spanish. Kind regards, Ana Muro Instituto de Estudios para la Sustentabilidad Corporativa O'Higgins 3819 - (C1429BBU) Buenos Aires, Argentina. 54-11-4702-0675 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.instituto.ws/iesc This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Dear Colleagues, I am intrigued by this statement by Vickram Crishna: I mention these two examples only to show that the realities of social change are very very complex and shouldn't be simplified into 'corporate' vs 'other model' - such divides do not serve the purpose that are sought by questions such as this topic line suggest. .. and I agree with it. My response here, by the way, is a real-time, (almost) one draft wonder, so please expect me to change some of what I say in further iterations and in other places. Let me introduce myself. I am Lee Thorn, chair of Jhai Foundation www.jhai.org which has developed, among other things, the Jhai PC and communication system. We have worked primarily in Lao PDR and are now branching out. I have worked on the ground - or near it - on social change projects for over 35 years, starting with Vietnam veterans organizations like and including Vietnam Veterans Against the War, where I worked briefly with John Kerry. I have an MBA, come from a business family, and taught organizational development in a graduate business school. I am a community organizer mainly ... by nature and training. One generation before me my family members were mainly farmers and rural entrepreneurs. I know myself a bit and the picture is ok, but not great. I believe I still can, as Sartre once suggested, improve my biography. I'm 61 and having a good time. I understand that Bill Gates and AMD are announcing a new product that will compete with the Jhai PC and communication system, they hope, in China and India. It is a low-power, low-cost, they say, computer. It will use Windows, as I understand it. I believe the Jhai PC and communicaton system will beat them ... or they and we will decide to work together on some aspects of what so many of us want to help people do: connect, often for trade, no matter what folks' economic status is or however remote their localities are. I expect the former; I'd love the latter. AMD and MS have all the advantages of corporate power and connections: vast money, pre-existing, successful organizations, facilities, and processes ... and wide connections among all - but one - important potential allies. It is the lack of connection with end user that will kill them. What they do NOT have is a product that: 1. Was developed with the direct help of people in poverty in the areas they intend to reach who put together not only a collective and clearly expressed needs statement, but also helped design the process of implementation, including their own business plan. 2. Was developed by people who have good connections with grounded ngo's with long track records in the communities they work and who are trusted, even adopted by, these communities. Or alternatively, was developed by family members in these communities and family members elsewhere with a set of skills and contacts and enthusiasm the communities want to make use of. Or both, as in Jhai's case. 3. Was and is being developed through open source, open design protocols which actually encourage the revision and redesign of both software and hardware by the maximum number of people. These protocols even include, I should say, the opportunities for others to rethink and remake the initial products and systems and make them their own. 4. An operational understanding that people are full and whole human beings who are very interested in communication and connection ... arguably more than any particular information or even economic betterment beyond the stage of just-past self-sufficiency. Almost everyone I have ever met want full lives, want to keep their traditions, and want to enjoy the diversity they see and hear about. People are not consumers. Consuming is one thing people do. So, is the answer adoption of another way of doing business and/or another way of doing development? I don't know. I am not comfortable on that level of abstraction. What my experience tells me is the picture is murky and very localized. What my experience tells me is that what is most interesting is what is most unlike what I can fit inside my cookie cutter, in fact, what forces me to get rid of cookie cutters as much as I can. What my experience tells me is that greed does not mobilize for long. What my experience tells me is that what mobilizes people best is hope and faith that their families and communities, including those in diasporas, can reconnect and connect better for the purpose of keeping their traditions ... while finding ways to increase their income without giving up their traditions. Iin many rural settings like where many of my relatives still live, the question is: how to we keep one or two kids per family on the farm? And here's something else: people know, especially poor people know, when they are getting hustled. They know even better when they are getting disempowered or are in danger of disempowerment ... eventually .. but they need to know they can support their children before they take
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
In relation to Al Hammond's posting on 10/27/04, I think there is a need to be more upfront about where ICT has a chance of working to alleviate poverty and where it does not. Citing examples from India (from where many of the ICT for Development examples seem to come) and South Africa begs the question of whether there is a threshold level of infrastructure (physical and human) needed to make effective use of ICT. This is a question I tackle in my paper for Ausaid entitled: Information and Communications Technologies and Development: Help or Hindrance? (available from the Australian Development Gateway website under ICT) - http://www.developmentgateway.com.au/ In the paper, I cite evidence from the the Networked ICT Readiness Index based on a rating of 82 countries (in S Dutta, B Lanvin, F. Paua, 2003, The Global Information Technology Report 2002-2003. World Economic Forum, Oxford University Press, New York). The analysis presented there shows a clear association between GDP per capita and rating on the Readiness Index. The lower the per capita income level of a country, the lower the country's networked readiness rating. A country's readiness score increases notably with small increases in a country's per capita income until it tapers off at around US$9,000 per head of population. This suggests that with increases in income per head of population for low-income countries, the capacity to use ICT will improve. India is an outlier on the correlation between GDP per capita and its Networked ICT Readiness score. It is well worth understanding why this is the case. But are the factors that make India an outlier special to India? Can other low income per capita countries replicate the Indian successes? Richard Curtain Public policy consultant www.curtain-consulting.net.au This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Dear Colleagues, Roland Alden's recent contribution made very interesting reading. Some portion of his comments, especially those relating to the distance-annulling benefits of technology, aligns perfectly with a recent article I wrote for some newspapers on a related aspect of the theme which I believe would be beneficial in discussing some of the far-reaching implications of the issue of technology, business, globalisation and the poor... --- Brain Drain.What Brain Drain? Knowledge is the most valuable commodity of the Information Age. Knowledge is power. Knowledge is more powerful than jet fighters and bombers - Ike Emegweali Brain Drain is a popular 90's terminology used in describing the effect of the migration from the African continent of skilled professionals to developed economies. A 2001 report by the Pollution Research Group of Natal University in South Africa says Africa has lost a third of its skilled work-force in recent decades, and that it is costing the continent up to USD$4b annually to replace them with expatriates. There are two types of job openings in the global job market. The first are poorly paid, dirty, and dangerous jobs usually scorned by nationals. While the second are highly specialized, professional positions available regardless of race or creed. However, there are two broad defects of the popular brain drain theory. The first defect is the attempt by brain drain theorists to link the current wave of adult self-migration from Africa to the forced migration of millions of able-bodied Africans brought about by slave traders four centuries ago. It is obvious that the two events do not equate in any meaningful manner. The earlier movement of skills from Africa was imposed by the physical capture of unskilled labourers who were permanently disconnected from the continent on reaching foreign lands. In contrast, the current upsurge of emigrating Africans is voluntary, and involves essentially skilled professionals who have been pre-trained (somewhat) in African schools. The numbers, from different sources, speak for themselves. Over 480,000 skilled persons have left the Continent since 1990 for countries in Europe, Asia, and America. There are over 21,000 Nigerian doctors practicing in the United States. A third of experts in African universities seek better employment opportunities abroad annually. Only 10% of Kenyan-trained medical staff remain in that country after qualification. 60% of doctors trained in Ghana in the 1980s have left for greener pastures. And the list keeps growing. The second problem with the postulation on brain drain by analysts is the suggestion that it is the best and the brightest that are emigrating, leaving behind the weak, slow and unimaginative. This is not completely true. Brain drain is nothing but the global, gradual, shift into an Information Age. And the first element of this new dawn is that knowledge would be the means by which an individual can effectively contribute to any society. Brain drain is the move by employers to secure intellectual capital that would advance their businesses from anywhere, and from anyone, irrespective of the race, gender, colour, tribe, and country of origin. In the knowledge economy, potential employees are being empowered by technology (and mainly the Internet) to overcome barriers created by geographical distances in their quest to join businesses that would make meaningful contributions to a new world. They are able to easily find on the Internet the businesses and institutions that require their services. They are now able to become what they want to be without encumbrances. There are five major reasons why African professionals are emigrating in droves. Many African professionals are running away from political persecution from home governments. They are discovering that the economic policies of the majority of African countries can be repressive of growth and personal development. These policies have devalued the effective worth of the wages they earn at home, so they are forced to look for better earnings and working conditions. The reality is that African wages in the most part just cannot compete with the West, and maybe it should not. They are also leaving to seek better career development and international exposure. Finally, they are running away from war, crime, and general insecurity of lives and property as obtains in many African countries. But the greatest reason for the fresh wave of manpower exits from the continent, in my opinion, is the influence of technology. Technology has enabled African professionals to find better jobs and opportunities. The Internet (www and email) has made job search by candidates, and recruitments by employers extremely fast. Technology has placed power in the hands of professionals to discover the openings on the globe that would make them become better, professionally and financially. They
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Al, I just got onto this forum and may have missed a lot, but as a small organic rancher I feel you are ignoring a lot of pertinent facts when talking about farming, especially in so called developing countries. I live in the middle of British Columbia, Canada, considered the wealthiest country on Earth. Right now I have made a deal to change my bull and have to get rid of my 5 year old, beautiful, healthy bull. There's about $10,000 worth of fast food outlet hamburger meat in that bull, yet, I've been begging people to take him for nothing, because our livestock prices at the farm levels have been artificially destroyed by big business lobby groups, while making huge profits at the retail levels both here in Canada and in the USA. Meanwhile there are almost 800,000 people in foodbank lines in Canada, 65,000 more than a year ago, over 13% of them employed in some chickenfeed, part time jobs, like millions in the USA and our animals are worth nothing while people starve. By next year thousands of Canadian ranchers will be put out of business, their lands and holdings picked up by multinationals for a song. About 1.5 million Mexican farmers have been pushed off the land by NAFTA, the Mexican middle and small business class destroyed, by some independent estimates 70% of the country pushed below the poverty level, while their imaginary GDP numbers doubled. The figures are all there in the open, if somebody's willing to look for them. In India there have been and are mass suicides by farmers, in Poland and estimated 3 million farmers will be forced off the land by their EU membership. While you are talking about the wonderful effects of hi tech etc. on farming communities, what will happen to these millions who still had something while they were on their lands, but now have nothing in city slums ? For example, do you realize that up till now 97% of Iraqi farmers used to reseed their own saved seeds, but now, as the legacy of Paul Bremner's proconsulate, using their own seed has become illegal and they'll be forced to buy their seeds from implanted multinationals ? What will happen to them? How many can survive ? What are the long term effects on the land and on human health of GM seeds and plants forced on the World by a few corporations on their way to control the global food supply ? Please no neoclassical economic rhetoric. I have been in farming on and off, both at the chemical Green Revolution and organic levels since 1948 and hold the 1991 copyright on the only scientifically correct definition of economic efficiency, well tested on World Bank forums, used in PhD dissertations remaining unbroken. As far I'm concerned, neoclassical economics may have started off as an error, I will give Milton Friedman et al, that much credit, but by now have become the biggest poverty creator and destroyer in history. If you, or anybody, really intends to look into the causes and solutions of daily growing global poverty and income gap, you won't find it in ideological theories. The claimed purpose of economics is supposed to be The science for the management and distribution of scarce resources. In my 59 years of historical and economic studies, plus my own personal experience in 4 countries under every know political ideology, I haven't found any evidence of any known economic theory that came anywhere near this stated purpose. Are there any solutions? Yes, there are, but first we have to forget everything we think we know and make a complete break with the past and present, using them only as experience and bad examples. Meanwhile 40,000 children will starve to death around the world today and every day, while their governments and economists are reporting glowing GDD and growth figures. This is all for now. With all the very best and cheers, Ed (Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC, Canada) On 10/27/2004, Al Hammond wrote: Cornelio Hopmann raises some important points. I agree that IT may often be used by service providers rather than by the poor directly. But I don't agree that there is no connection between what companies can sell to the poor and the needs of poor households. In conjuction with Professor CK Prahalad and others, we have documented a number of win-win business models. I realize that such approaches are still controversial, and that examples of corporate practices that have not benefitted the poor still come readily to mind. But for example, ITC, an Indian company that has put Internet-connected computers in farmers' houses, situating these e-choupals so that each serves 600 or so farmers, and supplied daily market prices for crops, found it necessary to create trust and economic and social value in order for its business model to succeed. They are now serving 4 million farmers. The case study can be found on www.digitaldividend.org. Nor is this an isolated example. We and our colleagues have documented win-win examples in many sectors. And we have evidence that
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Dear GKD List Members, By business approach do we mean an approach that relies on market mechanisms? Have we failed to see that the poor represent an important market? For example, it's generally accepted that the private sector will only go so far in deploying IT infrastructure because some areas are simply not profitable (hard to reach areas, areas where the people's purchasing power is minimal). To address this problem various solutions have been developed, in particular involving government policies that provide incentives for the private sector to go where it would otherwise not go. Should we revisit this consensus and ask ourselves how the private sector decides to invest or not invest in a particular area? Are those decisions based on false assumptions regarding the purchasing power of the poor? Or are we talking about small, local entrepreneurs taking advantage of their knowledge of local markets? A couple of related resources of interest: Can ICTs help the urban poor access information and knowledge to support their livelihoods? http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/ifup/conf/Theo-Schilderman.PDF Making Knowledge Networks work for the poor http://www.itdg.org/html/icts/knowledge.htm Barbara Fillip, Ph.D. Information and Dissemination Coordinator DOT-COM Alliance http://www.dot-com-alliance.org (202) 884-8003 This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Cornelio Hopmann raises some important points. I agree that IT may often be used by service providers rather than by the poor directly. But I don't agree that there is no connection between what companies can sell to the poor and the needs of poor households. In conjuction with Professor CK Prahalad and others, we have documented a number of win-win business models. I realize that such approaches are still controversial, and that examples of corporate practices that have not benefitted the poor still come readily to mind. But for example, ITC, an Indian company that has put Internet-connected computers in farmers' houses, situating these e-choupals so that each serves 600 or so farmers, and supplied daily market prices for crops, found it necessary to create trust and economic and social value in order for its business model to succeed. They are now serving 4 million farmers. The case study can be found on www.digitaldividend.org. Nor is this an isolated example. We and our colleagues have documented win-win examples in many sectors. And we have evidence that companies which simply try to take their products downmarket often fail. So I would suggest that there may be an important and overlooked connection between the market forces that drive globalization and their need for growth, when taken to the village level--and meeting the real needs of the poor. In many but not all of the examples we have studied, ICT plays a critical role--as a tool that enables transparent transactions, or helps drive costs down, or provides access to information, etc. Perhaps the connection between a business approach and the poor would be more clear if I describe the benefits to the poor that we think we see from pro-poor business strategies, and then the appropriate role of technology might be more evident. These include: 1) Breaking local monopolies of traditional goods and services, whether credit, or water, or agricultural inputs. Often local middlemen are the most exploitive of all, and a large company that rationalizes the supply chain can lower price and improve quality, providing competition to the local middlemen in ways that benefits poor people. Micro-finance is a classic example; or the e-choupals that ITC has deployed, offering lower price inputs and higher prices for the farmer's grain than the local (monopoly) auction markets. 2) Providing access to empowering technologies and/or information. In the example above, ITC provides internet access and market prices, empowering farmers. Internet kiosks, such as those provided by n-Logue, Drishtee, can often play a similar role. So can cell phones, such as those provided by Smart Communications in the Phillipines, which makes pre-paid text-messaging units available in very small units ($.03), within the range of virtually everyone--enabling people to find jobs, sell goods, even do remittance transactions; virtually all of the 14 million customers Smart serves are very low income, yet the company is growing rapidly and is profitable. 3) Creating jobs. HLL's Shakti distribution system for consumer products aims to create 500,000 self-employed entrepreneurs. Grameen Phone has close to 100,000 entrepreneurs providing village phone service. Vodacom in South Africa has more than 10,000 entrepreneurs who own and manage community phone shops. These are big, profitable businesses who are also creating jobs and wealth for local entrepreneurs--both win. In effect, these companies are extending commercial activities and market processes down to the village level--and in ways that are, we believe, beneficial to customers and local partners, as well as to the company. In fact, we think these mutual benefits are closely linked--that, in most cases, large companies will succeed commercially in selling to poor people if they also serve their real needs and create real local value and trust. If that's true, then it is not a matter of enlightened leadership, but as I suggested above, of extending the market processes that characterize global economic integration clear down to the village level--so that poor people can benefit from choice, market competition, and better price and quality, employment opportunities, etc., just as other (middle class) consumers do. It is this potential overlap between the needs of large companies for growth and what they need to do to succeed in low income communities, and the needs of the poor, that is truly a huge opportunity. And it suggests that a key step to making globalization work for the poor is to get large companies to stop ignoring the poor and instead take them seriously as a market. As for technology, we see good examples using Internet kiosks, cell phones, handhelds, software on servers that is accessible over any form of connectivity, wireless broadband--in our experience the business model is more critical in determining whether the technology is really useful in serving the poor than is the choice of technology per se. But that is not
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Dear Colleagues, I think we should separate (and not mix) the question of what marketing and packaging strategies are needed to sell ICT-services to the poor in a profitable way from what ICT-services the poor might need (and how to provide them in sustainable, maybe even profitable way). The former has almost nothing to do with the latter, (i.e. a credit-shark or slum-landlord apparently sells something to the poor and mostly in an extremely profitable way -for him- yet he does not provide them with any service they need, which means credit not on cut-throat conditions or decent housing, or more generally something that makes them less poor.) Plainly speaking, selling a service does not mean to serve, though many marketing-strategies try to sell us on their equivalence. Second required separation: there are services -like micro-credit, exports or material-purchase for cooperatives- that may require ICT-usage to cut operations-costs. The paper-work for a 100 US$ credit is almost as extensive as for a 100,000,000 US$ Credit- such that the poor may receive a service at reasonable costs. In my context, micro-credit is more expensive than credit cards, yet ICT is not used by the poor themselves -or only to a limited extent- rather than by an organisation that provides the service for the poor. There are similar examples in education and health-care. Third observation: neither the first nor the second bares any relation with Globalization, they are just local questions, except that -maybe- a global entity acts as service-provider and not a local one. If the focus of this discussion aims to be Globalization (and not only global versus local service-provider), then the questions have to be (1) how are Globalization and ICT inter-related and (2) which specific usage of ICT within Globalization serves the poor, (i.e. makes them less poor), or on the opposite hand, which ICT-usage in the context of Globalization makes them poorer. Yours, Cornelio This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Dear GKD Members, I fully agree with Roland. Technology for technology's sake is no good for anyone, except those who promote them for narrow ends. In most developing countries, (I can speak for India, Asia and Latin America where I have lived), computers are more for display and being a box that can be visibly seen, that impresses people to say they have introduced e-Governance. But they are hardly put to right use, as they don't mean business. They are bought to serve the narrow ends of politicians and bureaucrats. Instead, there should be a real business-like approach in technology. This includes providing ICT applications to Developing Country Governments that will allow them to work with the private sector more efficiently and reduce the amount of time companies have to invest in communicating with government. This type of software will help both local businesses and international companies invest in developing countries. We have introduced such a solution which has been replicated and adopted by some local Governments in India. The following provides more details: I am an ICT Specialist with over 25 years experience in India and North / South America. My organization Life Line to Business (LL2B.COM) has implemented e-Administration, a web enabled, platform independent, paperless office tool, developed using open source, for the benefit of Governments, corporations and NGOs. It helps to monitor all activities and projects of any organization in an electronic environment. Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT), a Govt. of Tamil Nadu Undertaking in India has installed e-Administration, for transparency and accountability. The tool has been designed, developed and implemented by Life Line to Business (LL2B.COM Pvt Ltd), an ICT organization specializing in e-Governance, having specialists with over a quarter of a century experience in e-Governance in India and North / South America. ELCOT is the nodal organization, vested with the responsibility for introducing e-Governance in the State. It has utilized e-Administration, a paper-less office initiative, for the last year, and has found it to be extremely rewarding and successful. ELCOT has entered into a marketing agreement with LL2B.COM to market e-Administration to various Government Departments and Undertakings. Seeing the success of implementation of e-Administration, the Govt. of Pondicherry, placed an order with ELCOT / LL2B.COM, for implementing an e-Platform, for the computerization of the Industrial Guidance Bureau activities of the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, by customizing e-Administration, within a period of 3 weeks. This is an unique initiative, being done for the first time in India, connecting 21 Departments, including Local Governments such as Municipalities / Commune Panchayats, on a simple LAN / dial-up, for on-line and off-line working, with the central repository server at the District Industries Centre, Pondicherry. This initiative should help the government work more smoothly with the private sector. The details can be seen in the Budget 2004-2005 address of the Lt. Governor of Pondicherry to the State Assembly http://pondicherry.nic.in and http://www.pon.nic.in/open/depts/finance/lgspeech2004.pdf Item 7 of the speech reads as follows: ..Removal of poverty may not be practically possible without focusing special attention on creation of gainful job opportunities. The Tenth plan at the national level envisages creation of 50 million new employment opportunities over a period of five years. Therefore, focused attention will be given to few critical sectors such as Industries, Information Technology, .. etc. which have very high employment potential. Item 20 of the speech, reads as follows: Industrial Guidance Bureau with integrated e-Platform has been established by substituting single window clearance system to speed up the process of industrial clearance / permission for setting up of new industrial units. A total of 21 Departments including Municipalities / Commune Panchayats have been integrated with a dedcated electronic network for granting permission to set up an industry and also to commence production. This saves a lot of time, effort and cost to industrialists and citizens as well as officials of various Departments. As against submitting 10 copies of documents in the manual system, in the electronic system, only one signed copy needs to be submitted, thereby saving 90% of paper, resulting in conserving of natural forest resources. Being a Linux platform, local language content can be easily added. This tool can be used by any community of users such as agricultarists, agriculture scientists, rural health and hygiene experts, etc. to deal with multiple agencies, for simultaneous review and action. It can also help in knowledge management and integration in NGOs, self assessment, decentralised field updating and centralised review and monitoring. More details can be viewed at:
