Re: [GKD] Should Developed Countries Subsidize the Internet for LDCs?
Dear GKD Members, As an ISP that uses alternative technologies to deliver connectivity I believe that I can not only speak with some authority on this subject but also offer some insight. I have opted for an in-line approach so as to preserve continuity in the discussion. On 12/10/04, Cornelio Hopmann wrote: To state it: in many cases they should not!...and not for the sake of avoiding spending but rather to avoid harming the Developing Countries. I am not sure how a proper implementation of communications infrastructure could harm a developing country - the key point being proper implementation. Technology isn't an inherently good or bad thing; it is how it is deployed and then used that determines if it is helpful or harmful. Why? Investing in and operating ICT-infrastructure takes money. This money may be spent in 3 different ways: (a) Paying for equipment (or reducing it's price) to be donated (b) Subsidizing material Operation-costs (like communication lines, energy etc.) (c) Paying local personnel totally or partially Let's see now position by position: (a) Actually the money goes to vendors of equipment, not to beneficiaries (i.e. it gives access to a market where otherwise there would be no access). Moreover -due to the high operation-costs- in many cases recipients of these donations find themselves either obliged to spend where otherwise they would not have spent a cent or simply not use the donated equipment. Please allow me to respectfully disagree with you. Yes, the money goes to vendors who provide the necessary equipment and we would all like to think this is done with a careful eye to securing the best pricing much like would happen when a small businessman purchases equipment for his own company. Does this directly help the local economy? No, but it does provide the raw material that will help the recipients. The trap you mention is when a poorly thought out plan that doesn't properly take into account real costs or replacement costs is rolled out. This type of inadequate planning causes failures regardless of where this is executed. The idea that anyone would put together a plan that forces high costs on to anyone is a sure sign that the administration should be replaced - not the technology. Any plan that is suggested needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure there is no hidden costs and that the real benefit is realized as opposed to causing harm. (b) Specifically if we talk about subsidizing communication costs, the money again goes to the big players not the beneficiaries. Again it opens a market that otherwise would not be accessible. Additionally in many, many countries local communication costs are artificially inflated by a monopoly situation or by the fact that local Telco's have to feed so many interested parties -from corrupt executives to corrupt politicians- that the TELCO-business is closer to Mafia-racketeering than to an honest business. Foreign money would allow them to perpetuate this situation. I fail to see why anyone would put additional complimentary infrastructure in place when this type of problem is known to exist. We are not interested in forcing international communications on someone who doesn't know anyone in other countries. What would be the benefit to anyone in that situation? So what would help? The ability to communicate with the village a few miles away and access to informational resources. As an ISP I can reliably tell you that the overwhelming portion of our traffic stays in our borders. Anyone who wishes to make an international call should use the existing telecommunications infrastructure, otherwise we risk their wrath. This type of communication infrastructure can be put in place independent of the local telecommunications concerns and in areas where this scenario is likely to be a problem the incumbents should be avoided at every possible juncture. As text messaging is useless to anyone illiterate we need to provide the ability to record a voice message and deliver it to wherever it needs to be sent FOR FREE. Better still, a video recording service would allow for both picture and sound to be recorded, transmitted, received on the other end, listened to so that an answer can be recorded and sent back. All of this can be accomplished without touching the telephone infrastructure and more importantly this can be done very inexpensively. This very same infrastructure could also be used to transmit information on any subject. In other words, someone in a remote location might need medical information as to how to treat a burn (for example) and they could make a request for this information, transmit the request and the correct information could be returned back to them in a multimedia format. Again, there would be no cost incurred utilizing a system like this other than replacement should a device break. (c) Even though theoretically possible, this one is the least common option I've seen...and
Re: [GKD] Should Developed Countries Subsidize the Internet for LDCs?
Dear Colleagues: Cornelio Hopmann makes a number of correct observations, but at least in my mind, the focus of the discussion needs to be expanded in order to get a clearer picture as to the issue of subsidizing the Internet. As defined, the points Cornelio makes is a bit like focusing on the dynamics of building a road, and trying to determine its value by only looking at those elements associated with the direct construction of the road. The real value of building an infrastructure, be it telecom, internet, or a road, lies not in its construction, nor even its operation, but rather, in its use. If these infrastructures are put into locations and settings where there is no leveraging of the investment, then Cornelio's arguments would be correct. But, if these investments are put into locations such that the infrastructure is leveraged, then it doesn't hold up; at least not in my mind. When an Internet infrastructure can expand delivery of education, economic opportunity, expand markets, improve health care, improve agricultural production or increase prices paid to the farms for their crops, then the benefits will likely be such as to overcome any downside arguments associated with subsidizations associated with building the infrastructure. Few would make the argument of ICT for ICT's sake, and this would extend to there not being much of a case to be made for subsidies simply for infrastructure's sake. But an argument for infrastructure-related subsidies to achieve targeted value-added use, makes the equation look a lot more promising. And as Cornelio points out, doing without subsidies would be better than with them if the local economics make this possible. In many locations it simply doesn't. And for sure, any action in this arena should have a strong focus on targeted results that focus on value-added use, not the infrastructure itself. Darrell Owen ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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] Community Planning Models - What is Everyone Using?
On 12/09/04, Peter Burgess wrote: The sort of modelling I am looking for is a (much simplified) village version of the UN System of National Accounts As a community organizer I have found the thinking of these two people helpful, especially when it comes to examining the engines of economic development in poorer communities: Jane Jacobs: http://www.newcolonist.com/jane_jacobs.html John L. McKnight: http://www.fordfound.org/elibrary/documents/5013/010.cfm McKnight speaks directly about assets. Jacobs speaks about, among other things, looking at economics from the vantage point of the street. What I like about Jacobs is her focus on real life. I believe they both help us get out of certain boxes. Whether or not they put us in other boxes is for others to say. Cheers, Lee Jhai Foundation Lee Thorn Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.jhai.org 350 Townsend St., Ste. 309 San Francisco, CA 94107 USA tel: 1 415 344 0360 fax: 1 415 344 0360 mobile: 1 415 420 2870 ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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] Should Developed Countries Subsidize the Internet for LDCs?
Dear Colleagues, To me, it seems that subsidies are useful as a way to exploit bifurcation points in the development of the bottom of the pyramid. MNCs (multinational corporations) in developed countries should be stimulated to start entrepreneurial ventures in developing countries as well as invest in locals who wish to pursue such ventures. This means that these MNCs invest in the ICT-structure and share in the accompanying gains. For the MNCs it will be crucial whether they are able to design a profitable business model. In all these cases in which MNCs enter the BOP-countries, locals need to play a central role. So, although developed countries may initiate the entrepreneurial activities, locals (work and knowledge) and MNCs (knowledge) work together to make it all work. For MNCs, a main focus is the development of a profitable (thus innovative) business model. The role of governments of developed countries then depends on what MNCs need from these governments in order for the MNCs to be able to have a profitable business model in place. Governments of developed countries could, for example, contribute by subsidizing the education of locals to use the ICT that is offered. These same locals can then again educate other locals and as the market grows in size, locals can start their own ventures in educating the market. Therefore, it seems to me that some form of subsidizing isn't so bad for as far as it fulfills certain conditions: - The business model makes sufficient use of locals. - Subsidizing by governments of developed countries is aimed at those aspects of the business model in which the MNC needs help to put a profitable business model in place (against reasonable costs). - The initiative of the MNC helps to make use of bifurcation points in the development of the BOP, which makes it possible for the subsidies to be temporary. - As you pointed out, the subsidies need to reach the locals personally. Regards, Martin On 12/10/04, Cornelio Hopmann wrote: As it was tacitly touched upon in our recent focused discussion and is a hot topic for WSIS-2005, I would be interested in other opinions. To state it: in many cases they should not!...and not for the sake of avoiding spending but rather to avoid harming the Developing Countries. Why? Investing in and operating ICT-infrastructure takes money. This money may be spent in 3 different ways: (a) Paying for equipment (or reducing it's price) to be donated (b) Subsidizing material Operation-costs (like communication lines, energy etc.) (c) Paying local personnel totally or partially ..snip... ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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/