Image from https://unsplash.com/photos/brown-concrete-buildings-during-daytime-Ae4qJD-IdL8
Introduction
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has emerged as a powerful tool to address poverty in underprivileged areas, offering opportunities for development. This essay critically explores two blog posts, “The Kenya Electronic Single Window System: A Digitization Effort with Challenges” and “Empowering Communities: The Financial Transformation Through ICT in Underprivileged Areas.” These posts are evaluated in the context of academic literature, particularly the work of Murphy and Carmody (2015) in “Africa’s Information Revolution: Technical Regimes and Production Networks in South Africa and Tanzania.” The essay also considers the debate over the concepts of development as ‘Economic Growth’ or as ‘Reducing Inequality’ within the realm of international development and the terminology of “Digital Development” (Heeks, 2019). Furthermore, the essay draws insights from Bhakti Shringarpure’s article, “Africa and the Digital Savior Complex,” to shed light on the implications of the “Digital Savior Complex” in humanitarian work.
ICT for Development: Promises and Challenges
“The Kenya Electronic Single Window System” aimed to streamline trade processes, reduce corruption, and improve efficiency through digitization. However, the project faced challenges, such as complexity, high costs, connectivity issues, and persistent corruption, as it failed to account for the existing socio-economic and institutional structures (Murphy & Carmody, 2015).
Unwin (2004, 2007) suggests that the exclusive focus on economic growth as the primary driver of development has the potential to increase social and political tensions due to growing inequality. This aligns with the challenges faced by the Kenya TradeNet project, where the exclusion of the informal sector perpetuated economic inequality.
Murphy and Carmody’s work in “Africa’s Information Revolution” provides a valuable framework for understanding the challenges faced by the Kenyan project. Their research emphasizes the importance of considering socio-economic and institutional structures when implementing ICT for development projects, which is precisely what the project failed to do. Murphy and Carmody argue that these projects often neglect the influence of market, political, and institutional structures on ICT integration within the Global South.
One primary issue was the system’s complexity, which added layers of bureaucracy, making it cumbersome for businesses, particularly SMEs. This complexity can be attributed to a technocentric perspective that overemphasizes ICTs’ role in transformative change.
High costs associated with the platform hindered SMEs from participating in international trade, echoing Murphy and Carmody’s argument that the mainstream ICT for Development (ICT4D) discourse often neglects the influence of market, political, and institutional structures on ICT integration within the Global South.
Connectivity issues in Kenya’s digital infrastructure, especially in rural areas, reflected the digital divide, a common challenge in underprivileged areas. Moreover, the project did not eradicate corruption, highlighting that digitalization alone cannot root out deeply entrenched issues.
Empowering Communities Through ICT
In contrast, the second blog post discusses the “Digital Green” initiative in rural India. This initiative uses low-cost video technology to provide locally relevant agricultural knowledge to marginalized communities. The success of Digital Green underscores ICT’s potential to empower communities, aligning with Murphy and Carmody’s argument that effective ICT integration can lead to positive changes in production networks and competitiveness.
The Difference Between the Two Cases
The Kenya TradeNet project’s failure and the success of Digital Green lie in their approaches to ICT implementation. Kenya TradeNet’s complex and exclusionary approach failed to consider existing socio-economic and institutional structures. In contrast, Digital Green’s community-based, accessible, and locally relevant approach addressed specific needs and challenges, aligning with Murphy and Carmody’s critique of the mainstream ICT4D discourse, which oversimplifies ICTs’ role in development.
Development as ‘Economic Growth’ or as ‘Reducing Inequality’?
The debate over development as ‘Economic Growth’ or as ‘Reducing Inequality’ is crucial within the realm of international development. The historical dominance of economic growth as the primary driver of development, especially in the post-Soviet era, has led to significant changes in global governance and the firm embedding of economic growth at the heart of international development discourse and practice. However, there has been growing recognition that focusing solely on economic growth has increased relative poverty and inequality, both within and between countries (Murphy & Carmody, 2015; Oxfam, 2016; UNDP, 2015).
Unwin (2004, 2007) highlights that the exclusive emphasis on economic growth as the dominant modality for poverty elimination is theoretically flawed and has practical shortcomings. This aligns with the growing recognition that the relentless pursuit of economic growth has resulted in increased inequality, both within countries and at a global scale.
Digital Development: A Terminological Perspective
The academic article “Digital Development: what’s in a name?” by Tony provides valuable insights into the terminological debate sparked by Richard Heeks regarding the relationship between digital technology and international development. In the evolving landscape of international development, the terminology surrounding the relationship between digital technology and development is of great importance. The question arises: should we refer to this relationship as “Digital Development” or “Digital-for-Development”? Richard Heeks has sparked this terminological debate, suggesting that it holds significance in how we conceptualize the role of digital technology in development (Heeks, 2019).
According to Heeks, “Digital Development” encompasses three distinct aspects: Digital in Development, Digital for Development, and Development in a Digital World. “Digital in Development” pertains to the utilization of digital technologies within development organizations to enhance their internal processes, such as coordinating programs, managing finances, and collecting data. This internal integration of technology has become increasingly common as development actors digitalize their operations.
On the other hand, “Digital for Development” emphasizes the intentional design and application of digital tools to achieve specific development outcomes. Initiatives in this category include digital apps and platforms designed for development, such as eHealth, mHealth, edtech, fintech, civic tech, e-Agriculture, and other ICT4D initiatives. This term underscores the connection between digital technology and development within the international development context (Tony, 2019).
Furthermore, “Development in a Digital World” considers the broader implications of the digital age on international development. It acknowledges that the digitization of the world has transformed how societies function, access information, and engage in development processes. The profound consequences of datafication, the commercialization of data, and the use of digital tools for governance and social protection necessitate a shift in how development is conceptualized. This term highlights the far-reaching impacts of digitalization on various aspects of international development, including governance, civic engagement, and social protection (Tony, 2019).
One crucial aspect emphasized in Tony’s article is the unequal attention that these three areas receive from international development actors and researchers. Different actors pay more attention to different areas, driven by their particular interests and goals. For example, development agencies have invested significantly in the application of Digital in Development, primarily to demonstrate efficiency and value for money. In contrast, researchers and informatics practitioners have focused on Digital for Development. However, Tony suggests that the most compelling issues moving forward may revolve around doing Development in a Digital World, where the implications of datafication and digital governance have significant implications for international development (Tony, 2019).
In conclusion, Tony’s article enriches our understanding of the terminological debate surrounding “Digital Development” and highlights the importance of distinguishing between Digital in Development, Digital for Development, and Development in a Digital World. These distinctions help us navigate the evolving landscape of international development in the digital age and understand the diverse implications of digital technology on various aspects of development (Tony, 2019).
Africa and the Digital Savior Complex
Bhakti Shringarpure’s analysis of the “Digital Savior Complex” sheds light on the dynamics of humanitarian work in the digital age. She highlights how humanitarianism, as a field, has evolved significantly with the advent of digital technology and the hyper-communication era. However, this evolution has given rise to a simplified moral sphere within humanitarianism, diluting and de-radicalizing its theoretical and experiential framework (Shringarpure, 2018).
Shringarpure argues that the Digital Savior Complex is rooted in the privatization, corporatization, and neoliberalization of humanitarian efforts. Humanitarianism is increasingly seen as a product or commodity, and digital technology plays a pivotal role in this shift. The creation of apps, video games, and digital humanitarian roles reflects this commodification trend.
Furthermore, hawkish human rights discourses have been co-opted for humanitarian interventions, often driven by market motives and geopolitical interests. This transformation in the humanitarian field moves away from empowering victims and addressing specific issues, focusing instead on empowering saviors and salvaging helpless victims.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the landscape of ICT for development is multifaceted and complex. The case of the Kenya Electronic Single Window System illustrates the challenges and shortcomings of technocentric approaches to development. It emphasizes the need to consider socio-economic and institutional structures, the digital divide, and the persistence of corruption in underprivileged areas.
In contrast, the Digital Green initiative showcases the potential of ICT to empower marginalized communities when implemented with a community-based, accessible, and locally relevant approach. The ongoing debate between development as ‘Economic Growth’ and ‘Reducing Inequality’ highlights the need to reconsider the dominant narrative of development centered solely on economic growth, as it has contributed to increased relative poverty and inequality.
The terminological perspective of “Digital Development” encourages a holistic view of the relationship between digital technology and development. It recognizes the internal and external applications of digital technology in development organizations and the transformative impact of the digital age on societies.
Bhakti Shringarpure’s insights into the Digital Savior Complex within humanitarianism caution against the commodification and de-politicization of humanitarian efforts. It underscores the importance of maintaining a focus on empowerment, specificity, and addressing the complex realities of those in need.
Ultimately, the success of ICT projects in underprivileged areas relies on understanding the immanent conditions of the regions in question and addressing their unique needs and challenges. ICTs are most effective when integrated in a manner that considers the complexities of the global economy, socio-economic conditions, and the potential pitfalls of the Digital Savior Complex.
This multifaceted perspective on ICT for development invites us to critically analyze the current approaches and paradigms in international development and strive for more inclusive, impactful, and empowering solutions. The future of ICT for development holds great potential, but it must navigate the challenges and pitfalls to truly bring about positive transformation in underprivileged areas.
Concluding reflections
Engaging in this hands-on group assignment has been a highly enriching experience for me as a communications professional. It allowed us the freedom to create content that mirrors real-life scenarios, which, in turn, helped bridge the gap between theory and practical application.
Through this assignment, I have come to appreciate the significance of aligning academic knowledge with real-world communication practices. It underlines the importance of understanding the target audience, crafting engaging content, and ensuring that the message resonates effectively. This exercise reinforced the idea that theory alone is insufficient, and practical experience is invaluable for a communications professional.
Collaborating with my peers on this assignment was particularly insightful. We collectively brainstormed ideas, honed our writing skills, and navigated through the complexities of the chosen topic. It highlighted the collaborative nature of the communication field, where teamwork and diverse perspectives are essential for producing well-rounded content.
Furthermore, this exercise reinforced my belief that communications professionals need to adapt to the evolving landscape of digital media and technology. It demonstrated that the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector, which we discussed in the assignment, plays a pivotal role in shaping the way we communicate and connect with audiences. Understanding how to leverage ICT for effective communication strategies is crucial in today’s fast-paced, interconnected world.
As a communication professional, this exercise has also emphasized the importance of staying updated with current trends and developments in the field. It highlighted that adapting to new tools, platforms, and communication strategies is essential for success in this ever-changing landscape. This assignment has not only deepened my understanding of the relationship between academic knowledge and real-world communication practices but has also provided valuable insights into the collaborative and dynamic nature of the communications profession. It reinforces my commitment to continuous learning and adaptation as I strive to excel in my career.
Literature overview
- Murphy, J. T., & Carmody, P. (2015). Africa’s Information Revolution: Technical Regimes and Production Networks in South Africa and Tanzania.
- Oxfam. (2016). An Economy for the 1%: How Privilege and Power in the Economy Drive Extreme Inequality and How This Can Be Stopped.
- UNDP. (2015). Human Development Report 2015: Work for Human Development.
- Unwin, T. (2004). Reconceptualising the Digital Divide.
- Unwin, T. (2007). ICT4D: Information and Communication Technology for Development. Cambridge University Press.
- Shringarpure, B. (2018). Africa and the Digital Savior Complex.
- Heeks, R. (2019). Digital Development: what’s in a name?