Up-Scaling Pro-Poor ICT-Policies and Practices: A Review of Experience with Emphasis on Low Income Countries in Asia and Africa
Richard Gerster; Sonja Zimmermannm (2005)
This report looks at the use of ICT for poverty reduction and as its potential and limitations at the grassroots, national, and global levels. It identifies parallels and differences in the use of ICT for poverty reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa and low income countries of Asia.
The key questions emerge:
How to mainstream ICTs?: Regulatory and policy environment, sector, facilitator in national poverty reduction strategies?
How to give poor people a stronger voice at all levels of decision making by using ICTs?
Opportunity: How to enhance income generation by the poor through ICT?
Security: How to up-scale formal and informal education of the poor by the use of ICT?
What pro-poor ICT regulations and policies (including free/open source software) are required for up-scaling ICT for poverty reduction?
The literature review indicates key lessons learnt in using ICTs for poverty reduction:
A participatory approach to ICT4D and involvement of people in all stages – from the needs assessment to monitoring – makes a difference as to its usefulness and impact.
Leadership matters, as does institutional own¬ership.
Pro-poor effects are more likely to occur if ICTs are embedded in a larger, demand driven development effort.
Adopting a community-based approach to ICT access has important strengths.
A minimum level of physical and human infra¬structure is required to foster effective and pro-poor use of ICT.
An appropriate choice of technology largely co-determines potential pro-poor effects.
Content should receive as much attention as access.
Countries mainstreaming ICTs effectively into their productive sectors gain dramatically in competitiveness.
Information and communication are not free; they involve costs.
Mainstreaming ICTs also pays off for people in poverty, even when budgets are stagnating or stinking.
Furthermore, the basic requirements for successful up-scaling of poverty reduction through ICTs are:
An enabling ICT policy environment;
A high priority assigned to ICT for poverty reduction;
Appropriate technology choices;
Mobilisation of additional public and private resources.
The way forward towards up-scaling pro-poor ICT policies and practices faces significant challenges during the transition phase in the development of national strategies. These include: retaining local ownership, capacity building in local communities, adaptation to the local contexts, developing sustainable business models, and defining the level of institutional and public sector support.
Successful up-scaling requires action at different levels:
Advocacy at all levels, particularly the bringing together of development and technology specialists, is key for up-scaling poverty reduction through ICTs. The added value of declarations and advocacy statements depends on the extent to which they are heard by governments, civil society and the private sector regionally, nationally and locally. In particular, the younger generation should be reached.
Global coalitions advancing empowerment, opportunity and security of people in poverty, including fostering gender equality, education, health and democracy, are an effective and efficient channel for taking up-scaling concerns forward. In particular, intensifying South-South networking and dialogue should be pursued.
South-South exchanges and partnerships can be an efficient and effective way of learning. Comparable contexts and challenges create empathy and facilitate the transfer of knowledge. The MS Swaminathan Research Foundation is using a successful model: A travelling workshop that directly links the Indian grassroots experience with the experience of the workshop participants from other countries and continents.
Building multi-stakeholder partnerships to take advantage of the complementary roles of governments, the private sector, and civil society. Multi-stakeholder partnerships are a promising and appropriate response to the complexity of tasks, to the need for resources, to scaling up, and to the fact that development is a shared responsibility.
|
|
|
