Telecommunications use in contexts characterised by a high incidence of household poverty displays a level of complexity and economic rationalism not immediately obvious in everyday telecommunications practice in developed countries. (Skuse and Cousins, 2005:6)
Three overarching reasons for ICT use have been named as information;
communication and participation (Vengerfeldt, 2003:9), which is similar to Barrantes’
(2007:32) classification of ICT attributes, namely information, communication and connectivity, where “...ICT demand will be understood as the demand for these
attributes...”. While the nature of accessing information or communicating through digital ICTs is commonly understood, online participation requires some description. Activities where the user plays an active role, such as requesting information from organizations online, posting comments on websites, signing digital petitions, and blogging is regarded as online participation (Vengerfeldt, 2003:13). van Dijk (2006:230) refers to this as the creative use of ICTs. Barrantes (2007:36) also distinguishes between levels of digital poverty
according to whether ICT use is passive or active, where active use includes making
transactions or using government e-services. For example, “The Stream” aired on Al Jazeera English television station and streamed online, accommodates all three reasons for ICT use (information, communication and participation) and is also an example of merging
platforms.25
With merging platforms, it is increasingly difficult to research ICT access, use and impact, especially with regard to internet use. Nevertheless, much research has been done, particularly on who has access to and who uses ICTs, as well as the problems associated with different types of ICT provision. Less common, is data on reasons for and benefits from use, particularly the impact of ICT use on development or poverty, because of the complexity of reality-based ICT4D research. More recently, political activism through creative ICT use has
25 During a broadcast of “The Stream”, the activists and other citizens with relevant experience and knowledge take part in a live discussion (which includes in-studio guests and guests connected through a live video-link) on a current topic. The general public can participate by sending a text message via Facebook, Twitter, Google Chat or Google mail or by sending a video message, which is fed into the discussion by a dedicated media- monitor host. People can also simply watch (and/or listen) on TV or live via internet (using a cell-phone, computer or iPad), and they can continue to take part in the live interaction after TV broadcasting ends, through the live online ‘post-show’.
supported movements for social justice (as seen from the extensive and creative use of ICTs in the Arab Spring). This illustrates the rapidly changing nature and context of the
application of ICT tools to people’s collective needs. The use of ICTs for social justice during the Arab Spring was recognised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as an illustration of how the
“...Internet has become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights” (LA Times, 2011). It also indicates why impact is often difficult to measure, given that ICT use for social justice relies on the multiple, diverse, unplanned and uncontrolled effort of an
immeasurable number of people through different types of ICT use. This subsection considers patterns in the nature of ICT use, ICT users and an overview of impact.
3.1.1 Patterns of ICT Use
Data on ICT access (such as cellular phone subscriptions) and use (such as bandwidth consumed) that can be measured quantitatively, automatically recorded and collated, provides a less contested basis for the analyses of ICT access and use. The magnitude and growth of the information superhighway or digital revolution is illustrated though data from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Mobile-cellular subscription rates
indicate this to be the most extensive ICT service: with close to 6 billion subscriptions by end 2011, which equates to 86% global penetration (International Telecommunication Union [ITU], 2012b:1) and it is estimated to reach 6.8 billion in 2013 (ITU, 2013:1). International Internet bandwidth increased by 700% in the five years up to end 2011, when about a third of the global population (2.3 billion) were using the internet (ITU, 2012b:2).
Rates of growth are extremely high; however when these global figures are
disaggregated by region, a complex picture emerges with persistent gaps internationally.
Based on 2006 data, the proportion of population using the internet in North America was 68.6%, compared to 2.6% for Africa (Warschauer, 2008:140). “By end 2011, 70% of the total households in developed countries had Internet, whereas only 20% of households in
developing countries had Internet access” (ITU, 2012b:2). Estimates for 2012/2013 indicate growth to 78% of households in the developed world and to 28% in the developing world (ITU, 2013:3). While rates of growth are generally higher in the developing world for various categories of ICT use, huge differences persist. Overall, for different ICT platforms, as well as
for individual and household internet use, Africa as a region consistently has the lowest use on average, while Europe consistently has the highest use (see Table 3-2).
The extent of use puts the difference between developed and developing populations’ internet use into perspective: an internet user in Europe uses 25 times more
international internet capacity, than a user in Africa (ITU, 2012b:1). The difference in mobile cellular
subscriptions is however not as great: rate of mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 citizens in
Europe is double that in Africa (ITU, 2012a), but data shows faster growth in mobile cellular subscriptions among people in developing countries, with four out of every five new mobile- cellular subscriptions added in 2011 originating in developing countries (ITU, 2012b:1). In the next subsection, a critique of the digital divide reflects a familiar development story about varying levels of access and use of basic services within national populations.
3.1.2 The Digital Divide: the Same Old Development Story
The poor, …especially women, have limited access to and utilization of ICTs in their daily lives. (Bakesha et al., 2009:142)
What Heeks (2002:1) refers to as a combination of the “...hype and hope...” generated by ICTs in the late 1990s led many to regard ICTs almost as the answer to development needs or at least as a fast track to tackling poverty. Earlier ICT4D projects centred on the transfer of technology based on the assumption that with technologically advanced ICTs, developing countries could leapfrog to quickly catch up with the developed world. This has not been the case (Britz, 2004; Heeks, 2002).
The digital divide (DD) became a common term, referring to the gap between those who had and those who did not have access to new forms of information technology (van Djik, 2006:221). In the early 2000s, the technological and physical orientation of the DD
Table 3-2: Europe-Africa ratio of average ICT statistics
ICT users, subscriptions or platforms Ratio for Europe:Africa
Active mobile-broadband 6:1
Mobile-cellular 2:1
Fixed-telephone 28:1
Fixed/wired-broadband 78:1
Individuals using Internet 5:1
Households with Internet access 12:1 Source: Own calculations based on 2012/2013 data estimates from ITU (2012a). Note: The Europe: Africa ratio has been rounded off to the nearest whole number.
concept (which had directed much ICT4D activity and research) was questioned by a number of sector stakeholders (see Barrantes, 2007; Heeks, 2002; Vengerfeldt, 2003). Physical infrastructure and technologically advanced equipment and software are an important aspect of ICT access, but access does not equate to use. Many have critiqued the concept, theory, identification and analysis of the DD with some analysis labelling the DD as confusing (see van Dijk, 2006); redefining the DD (see Jackson et al., 2008); or refocusing on the
intersection between technology and inequality (see Warschauer, 2008). Others looked beyond the digital divide (see Vengerfeldt, 2003) or opted to pursue alternative approaches (see Barrantes, 2007). Shifting from the concept of a DD to that of an information divide, Britz (2004:192-193) also notes a variety of issues of difference (e.g. cultural, linguistic, educational, socio-economic and so on) that characterise an increasingly complex divide.
The gender DD with regard to access, control and use of ICTs is evidenced from research over the past decade (Association for Progressive Communications [APC], 2013;
Jackson et al., 2008; Moolman et al., 2007; Urquhart et al., 2008; Vengerfeldt, 2003). “Most women within developing countries are in the deepest part of the divide further removed from the information age than the men whose poverty they share” (Hafkin and Taggart, 2001:1). Factors constraining women’s access are numerous: “...including literacy and education, language, time, cost, geographical location of facilities, social and cultural norms, and women's computer and information search and dissemination skills” (ibid:2). “The gender divide is one of the most significant inequalities, amplified by the digital revolution, and cuts across all social and income groups” (Moolman et al., 2007:4).
Regarding other socio-economic patterns identified, Jackson and colleagues (2008:441) suggest “...a new digital divide based on the interaction of race and gender” from their research over three years with American children, and Warschauer (2008) notes sharp disparities in use of ICTs in the USA in the 1990s, according to race, income and education.
Kalmus and colleagues (2011) and Vengerfeldt (2003) reported on age as a factor explaining patterns in ICT use, and Barrantes (2007) explores digital poverty with respect to levels of income and education in addition to age. Beyond these more common social differentiators motivation, interest, effort, goals and other psychological factors have also been researched with respect to the DD. Vengerfeldt (2003:17) investigates motivation and strategic skills as a possible reason for why people opt for particular types of ICT use. Kalmus and colleagues
(2011:385) consider the influence of personality traits (in addition to personal motives) with respect to online ICT use, as well as the impact of socio-economic variables and individual circumstances on user preferences (ibid:386). Pinkett (2000) noted cultural values, beliefs, and practices as influencing the way people see the world and therefore as impacting on ICT use.
Critical to moving beyond a technological DD, was the recognition that together these different dimensions of a multiple and complex DD were merely a reflection of society:
“[T]raditional gender roles and issues are reproduced …[b]ecause... those traditional roles and issues still dominate” Heeks (2005a:5). Referring to “...age-old demographics...” like income and ethnicity, van Dijk (2006:223) comments that “[m]ost often a historical perspective is lacking” with respect to “...other things that are unequally divided in
contemporary or past societies” and Skuse and Cousins (2005:3) note a “...substantive lack of social analysis within contemporary debates...” regarding the DD and development.
In the last decade much effort has focussed on the need for theory in support of ICT4D (Heeks, 2002; van Dijk, 2006; Urquhart et al., 2008). Flor (2012:50) noted blurred
boundaries concerning which discipline ICT4D praxis fell under, which made it difficult to establish a theoretical anchor. Considering ICT access and ICT use separately promoted the pursuit of a theoretical explanation for ICT4D research findings. For example, Bakesha and colleagues (2009) provided insight into the complex reality beneath ownership of ICT
devices: socio-cultural norms affect ownership, access and use; and therefore, just as access does not equate to use, neither does ownership of ICT devices equate to access. Moolman and colleagues (2007:7) quite rightly point out that “… the age-old question of who speaks for whom remains relevant”. This applies to the gender divide, where “…men dominate users, designers, content producers and decision makers…” (ibid:7) and beyond.
Participation through ICTs is increasing at a frenetic pace, as illustrated by the emergence and increasing popularity of citizen journalism, also known as participatory journalism (Okoro, Diri and Odii, 2013). While digital ICTs have empowered citizens to document and disseminate their reality, so too have powerful state forces used ICTs to try to dominate current public perspectives on events. While the internet may be the single most important factor that has facilitated challenges to dominant power structures and the globalised capitalist system; nations with both power and financial resources are often in a
better position to take advantage of opportunities created by technological innovation (Britz, 2004), than less powerful and poorer nations, organisations and individuals.
A positive impact of the technological DD concept was that it brought the underlying issues of unequal access and use to the fore (van Dijk, 2006:222). Questioning the DD concept provided insight into ICT4D’s theoretical underpinnings, in pursuit of how best to use ICTs for the benefit of poorer nations (Urquhart et al., 2008:203), promote pro-poor development, and advance social justice (Britz, 2004).26 Other issues to be addressed by ICT4D theory relate to the changing nature of the divide over time (Jackson et al., 2008;
Warschauer, 2008) and the notion of a clear separation between those included and excluded from the information age (van Dijk, 2006:222).
3.1.3 Development Impact of ICT Use
Benefits from ICT access and use cover all sectors of society – financial, social, educational and so on. Drawing on a wide range of recent literature, Spence and Smith (2010:12) summarise the economic and social services enabled by connectivity (mainly through mobile phones) for poorer people as: a] finance (e.g. m-banking); b] distribution (e.g. connecting producers with markets); c] employment and income (e.g. accessing jobs through mobile phone use); d] personal advancement (e.g. managing child care); and e]
public services (e.g. e-government services). There are also examples of inner
empowerment: “… [t]he most immediate and direct effect of ICT programs seems to be the psychological empowerment of poor people, whereby newly acquired ICT skills provide poor people with a sense of achievement and pride, thus strengthening their self-esteem” (Gigler, 2004:32). Other evidence of social and psychological empowerment includes improved social status for rural women (Songataaba Association, 2007:92); empowerment for women in the home to take part in family decision making due in part to income from retailing mobile use (Yusuf and Alam, 2011:39); and increased social interaction and improved self- confidence through face-to-face contact with others at local telecentres (Bakesha et al., 2009:150-151). Prado documents the case of the community of El Limón (in the Dominican Republic) who shared a common sense of ownership of their telecentre and benefited from
26 Key components of current ICT4D theory is taken forward in section 3.3.
the telecentre, either through direct needs-based use or from associated benefits of access to information, education and as a base for social interaction (Prado, 2010:10).
The overwhelming perception in the community was that the telecenter brought positive change to El Limón. Almost everyone agreed that the presence of the telecenter helped locals solve problems and provided a source of news and information. Practically all agreed that the telecenter helped empowered the community, fostered closeness, and trained young people for modern life. Most also agreed that the telecenter brought neighbors together to address common issues, helping them prepare for storms, imparting information about how to keep the water clean, and opening new markets for the goods produced in the area.
Many credited the telecenter for providing information about health and child care. (Prado, 2010:8)
While there are other examples of the pro-poor impact of telecentres and other ICTs, the development impact of ICT4D projects remains under-researched (Heeks and Molla, 2009:1). Studies that have been done, show mixed results specifically regarding telecentre access and use (Sey and Fellows, 2011; Spence and Smith, 2010), although many articles refer to how ICT use has the potential to promote development or improve well-being. It is difficult to attribute development impact directly to ICT use, particularly non-financial and non-economic impact. In some cases, an assessment of telecentre functionality or
sustainability is substituted in place of an assessment of development impact on the lives of people. This discussion is taken forward below, after considering supply.