Month: October 2003

Here is an example of muddled thinking from an article titled India Bridges the Digital Divide. The article is about computer kiosks. At one point it says:

Over the past decade, the Internet has been touted as a powerful engine that could raise living standards in poor and remote communities of the Third World by opening up new avenues for education, commerce and participatory democracy.

So far so good. Then it goes into the usual whining about the digital divide.

But the reality is a growing digital divide that is preventing the poor from sharing in the benefits of the Information Age. The gap between digital haves and have-nots is especially wide in India, where a national survey last year revealed that fewer than 1 percent of adults had used the Internet in the preceding three months.

OK, let’s get one thing clear. It is not the digital divide that is preventing the poor from benefiting from ICT. It is the fact that they are poor that is preventing them from benefiting from ICT. Not just benefiting from the use of ICT, the poor also are not benefiting from the advances in medical technology, in cosmetic surgery, in plasma TV technology, ad nauseum. It is not the digital divide, stupid, it is an income divide, it is a wealth divide, it is an opportunity divide.

If the poor had money, they would not be poor, and like all non-poor, would be able to buy all sorts of stuff — including, but not limited to — digital gizmos. They would buy education, clothes, food, houses, cell phones, cd players, DVD players, plasma TVs, and computers. There would not be a digital divide. It bears repeating: the digital divide is not the cause of poverty nor is it the cause of the persistence of poverty. The digital divide is a result — an effect, a consequence — of poverty.

Now coming to India: India does not have a digital divide. Let me put that in bold.

India does not have a digital divide.

If a vanishingly small number of people have something, there is no divide. For instance, it is pointless to talk about a BMW divide: we are all in the same boat when it comes to having BMWs and therefore there is no divide. So also, to a first approximation, Indians don’t have access to the Internet, except for a few million people. And the few million who do have it, have to pay inordinate amounts of money to get a slow uncertain connection.

I hope that we can put that myth to rest one of these days.

Bridging the Digital Divide appears to be the stock in trade heading these days of too many reports and conferences and meetings. Every blessed project name seems to have a e- prefixed to it. From e-governance to e-learning to e-this, e-that, e-the-other. It is all very e-boring. One wonders as to the e-cause and therefore I think we should do a bit of e-seeking for some e-explanation.

The next time I see another e-scheme, I will be ready to e-scream.

Seriously, here are what I believe to be the reason for this fixation with the so-called digital divide, in no particular order. First, it is a simple case of ‘to a person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.’

Practically everyone involved with anything to do with development (except the direct beneficiaries of development) has some facility with ICT. So therefore they start to believe that every problem has a solution that is ICT related.

The next explanation is what I call the bank robber phenomenon. When some famous bank robber was asked why he robbed banks, he simply replied because that’s where the money was. ICT projects are the most lavishly funded. And therefore, it attracts the most attention from people who would like to get a piece of the action.

Another part of the explanation is what I call the drunk looking for his key scenario. A man evidently drunk was seen searching for something under a lamp post. When asked he said that he lost his keys under the trees over there. But why was he searching for them under the lamp post? “Because,” he said, “it is easier to look for it under the light.”

Definitely, part of the explanation has to involve simply not recognizing that the digital divide is merely symptomatic of some other underlying cause. But it is too bothersome to seek to understand that cause. And even if the cause is as plain as daylight, it may be too difficult to deal with the cause. So one gets busy addressing the symptom.

Addressing only one symptom (the digital divide) while neglecting to understand the causes leads to spectacles that are reminiscent of the south seas cargo cults.

During the war, the natives of some South Pacific islands had noticed a curious phenomena. They had witnessed some people prepare a long piece of land and mark it with flares and fires. Then someone with cups on his ears would talk into a device and soon planes would land in the clearing and disgorge cargo. When the war was over, the natives decided that they needed cargo. So they made headphones out of coconut shells and radio receivers out of bamboo and lit the fires around the clearings. They haven’t had much sucess in getting cargo yet, but they believe that the cargo would appear just as soon as they can duplicate the equipment better.

I do not believe that merely going through the motions, however sincerely, of bringing ICT to rural populations would magically transform the rural economy. Focusing on the digital divide could indeed be counter productive in that resources that could have been better employed would be wasted in inappropriate ventures.

I should hasten to add that there is indeed a digital divide. But we must also recognize that there are other divides as well, such as a nutritional divide, a gender divide, an income divide, an education divide, and so on. All these divides are interrelated and there are strong dependencies. It is a second best world out there and it is easy to fall into the trap of seeking first-best solutions in a second-best world.

I will discuss why I believe that ICT tools are most suited to address the complex set of problems which cause all the divides, including the digital divide. My contention is this: we need to focus on the understanding the underlying reasons for the underdevelopment of rural areas. Having done that, we then need to figure out the best use of our limited resources to bring to bear the most appropriate tools for addressing the causes. If we do that, then we would have bridged all the divides, including the much talked about digital divide. It may turn out that ICT tools are the most appropriate in many areas. But a priori assuming that ICT tools are always appropriate is silly and sometimes tragically too expensive.

For now, I cannot find a more succinct depiction of the misplaced emphasis on the digital divide than this cartoon by the incomparable R K Laxman.
“I am hungry … if we had a computer, we could have ordered food through a website.” }