What sort of enabling environment is needed to promote ICT4D and what are the barriers to that ideal environment?

To parse those extremely wide questions, it is useful to have a framework for understanding what influences the use of ICTs.

In his book Code, Larry Lessig developed a framework for the behavior of online regulation that is handy for ICT use more generally. According to Lessig, four forces influenced behavior: law, social norms, the market and architecture (be it software code or the speed of light).

He writes in version two of the book,

The constraints are distinct, yet they are plainly interdependent. Each can support or oppose the others. Technologies can undermine norms and laws; they can also support them. Some constraints make others possible; others make some impossible. Constraints work together, though they function differently and the effect of each is distinct. Norms constrain through the stigma that a community imposes; markets constrain through the price that they exact; architectures constrain through the physical burdens they impose; and law constrains through the punishment it threatens.

This interdependence between the regulatory forces means that an enabling environment for ICT4D must address all four forces. The Fair Mobile project (which I wrote about here), seeks to address at least two parts of the framework: the market and the architecture. Closed networks curtail innovations from the edge and high prices limit consumer usage, but you can also see how they are all related: cheaper SMS prices will undoubtedly change the norms around mobile phone usage, and laws may have to adapt to those.

But plenty changes could be made in other realms, as well:

• Law: Are financial regulations limiting innovative mobile banking offerings? Are there appropriate privacy regulations in place?
• Social norms: Are parents capable of raising children safely in a digital world? Will ICTs in the classroom be met with distaste or interest? Is there a gender gap?
• The market: Is the monopoly-prone telecom sector being properly regulated? Are the unique financial situations and desires of the poor being met?
• Architecture: Are devices designed for the rigors of the developing world? Can non-English speakers use the keyboards they find in an Internet cafe?

Alternatively, in The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler has proposed a framework that conceives of the networked information environment as three layers: the physical layer (e.g. fiber optic cables or computers), the logical layer (e.g. standards and software), and the content layer (human communication).

A mediated human communication must use all three layers, and each layer therefore represents a resource or a pathway that the communication must use or traverse in order to reach its intended destination. In each and every one of these layers, we have seen the emergence of technical and practical capabilities for using that layer on a nonproprietary model that would make access cheaper, less susceptible to control by any single party or class of parties, or both. In each and every layer, we have seen significant policy battles over whether these nonproprietary or open-platform practices will be facilitated or even permitted.

There are challenges to an enabling ICT4D environment on each layer:

• Physical: Are rural communities receiving access to broadband Internet deployments? Are the billions of mobile phones around the world able to be recharged?
• Logic: Are there standards that will allow technical solutions to reach economies of scale? Does software respect the freedoms of individuals?
• Content: Are there high-quality educational resources available in the required languages? Are foreign media disrupting traditional values?

Although there is a lot of overlap with Lessig’s version, Benkler’s layered framework is especially useful because it discusses content, a notoriously difficult piece of the ICT4D environment to enable.

Likely because they were developed to discuss regulation, these frameworks aren’t perfect. For example, individual capacity – be in coding acumen or basic literacy – is difficult to shoehorn into either. Are there additional pieces of the enabling environment for ICT4D that are missed by these frameworks?

Are there certain parts of each that are more important to address? Are there certain countries or regions where progress is much further?

Once again, more questions than answers…