In economic development, the micro-macro paradox refers to the observation that most projects and programs are reported as successes, but macro level indicators do not often reflect similar success. If USAID or some NGO is building a bunch of hospitals, training a bunch of workers and paving a bunch of roads, and these are all reported as successful individual projects, why don’t health indicators rise, productivity increase, and growth accelerate?

One of the most obvious explanations is that evaluation criteria for the micro level is inadequate. That is, those hospitals, workers and roads aren’t actually any better than before.¹

A different dynamic seems to be at play in ICT4D, though. In contrast to the foreign aid macro literature, where aid’s effectiveness is brought into serious doubt² , the ICT4D macro literature is fairly conclusive: more ICTs lead to higher growth. More mobiles, more growth.³ More broadband, more growth.⁴

However, at the micro level, the effectiveness of ICT4D is seriously questioned. Events like FailFaire have drawn attention to the on-the-ground realities that make successful ICT4D interventions so difficult. Among these issues are technical mishaps and social dynamics (such as trust, existing power structures, and simple lack of interest or buy-in).

So it seems that ICT4D has a micro-macro paradox, but it is the opposite of the foreign aid version: micro, ineffective; macro, effective. Why is this? Some might argue ICT4D is a field with better M&E; after all, the frank discussions that happen on blogs and at events like Failfaire seem to indicate a level of awareness that perhaps leads to good micro practices and therefore good macro results. This could be the case, but I actually highly doubt it.

More likely, I think, is that researchers and practitioners fall prey to a form of technological determinism. If you read the macro level ICT4D studies that derive growth from increased technological diffusion, you could be forgiven for believing that giving each child a laptop is a necessary and sufficient effort for development goals. Reasonable observers, of course, know that simply putting a phone in the pockets of more people will not magically lead to development – it’s about appropriate usage and an enabling environment.

Getting those right, however, is far from guaranteed, and I’m increasingly confident that ICT4D is successful not because of micro or macro initiatives, but mid-level, meso institutions and policies that mediate between the two extremes. But more on that soon.