Archive for May, 2009

Cell phones and the Internet are spreading in Cuba, apparently empowering dissidents. This follows illicit television that has been popular in Cuba for years:

Since the 1990s, television has been the censors’ Achilles heel. Thousands of Cubans, mostly in Havana, watch Spanish-language telecasts from Miami. U.S. State Department officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 parabolic antennas are in use in Cuba.

Will two-way communications empower more than TV broadcasts? Or will traditional power structures bring about changes in Cuba?

–

Lots of good statistics about Internet usage in China.

–

Another piece on the trade vs. aid debate, but with a heavier focus on African entrepreneurship. [For more information, see infoDev's page on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, including this report on the SME Financing Gap.]

My favorite class this year was about the rise of China and India as international powers. It was taught by a former World Bank economist who has done much of the work on these two countries’ “knowledge economies.” My term paper examined intellectual property in China and India.

Although many objective observers see stronger intellectual property rights as an amenable, even necessary, policy for China and India, there are significant downsides to increasing IPR protection and enforcement. Strengthened IPR is likely to disproportionately advantage the developed world, decrease the ability of China and India to diffuse productivity-enhancing innovations, prove both insufficient and unnecessary for promoting innovation, and even be counterproductive to the countries’ innovation systems.

Here’s the entire paper. (Also available for download here.)
There Is No Harmony In a Patent Thicket: Towards an Effective IPR Regime in China and India

(Some caveats: I’m relatively new to this subject, don’t have on-the-ground experience and haven’t yet read ‘Small Is Beautiful’.)

If you hang around ICT4D long enough (that is, more than a day or so), you’re sure to hear people promoting “Appropriate Technology.” The important idea is not widely understood outside the ICT4D community, but refers to designing and using technology with special consideration to unique environmental, cultural and economic situations. People that work on these issues know that the same technologies that are successful in Silicon Valley are unlikely to be successful in the Great Rift Valley – there are simply too many differences to make it possible.

Supporting “Appropriate Technology” (AT, to those in the know) is taken as something of an article of faith for ICT4Ders – worthy of my admittedly obnoxious capitalization. But, outside of broad (and rather useless) generalizations, how useful is the concept?

Take laptops. The OLPC was touted as AT because it was dust proof, highly readable, mesh networkable, etc. Where my MacBook Pro would kick the bucket in 24 hours, the OLPC would hum away contently. However, plenty of folks have argued that, actually, OLPC is inappropriate for education in important developing countries. In fact, maybe the ubiquitous mobile phone is better suited for educational technology. Or could it be radio? Or (*gasp*) simple paper?

My (half-formed) idea is that “Appropriate Technology” may, in reality, be of very little use to practitioners a priori. Obviously, the Mac isn’t right for a rural Rwandan classroom. But, in determining what specific technology to deploy, I think there are broader, more determinative, aspects of technology utlization such as the passion and dedication of the users and implementers, than simply designating some tech as appropriate and some as not. There are many possibilities and I worry that we lose sight of the non-technical aspects of ICT4D when quibbling about the ICT.

[By the way, infoDev has recently launched Educational Technology Debate, an interactive debate website, that will address issues such as this in the field of ICT for education. Check it out and spread the word - there are a bunch of fun debates coming up.]

Evgeny Morozov on a potential downside of (unrealized) connectedness:

Here is the main problem with the new networked public sphere that has emerged to replace our national and mostly self-contained public spheres: when one node on the network blunders, all other nodes have to suffer through the consequences. In this case, the blunder is Britain’s and the rest of us have to suffer from interminable Savage coverage on television and the Internet, as both mainstream media and bloggers feel some desperate urge to air Savage’s juiciest and most offensive quotes over and over again. It’s a real pity that the British authorities still believe in a world that recognizes travel bans; whether we like it or not, the only use of travel bans in the world we currently live in is to trigger viral tsunamis.

Blaise Alleyne on false dichotomies in technology policy:

The spectrum of technologies Thierer presents has “tinker-friendly” and “safe and simpler” at opposite ends. Why don’t we demand both? WordPress defies this spectrum; a hosted blog at WordPress.com is safe and simple, but that code is available at WordPress.org for anyone to install and tinker with on their own servers. Few would disagree that Firefox is safe and simple, but it’s also “wide-open” free software with which anyone can tinker.

Hans Rosling on the media ignoring the real global killers: