Most of us have heard the term ‘new economy’ thrown about in discussions of ICT and development, often without having a concrete understanding of what this term means and what real effect it has on countries. The ‘new economy’ has also been described as: the ‘knowledge economy’, an ‘information-driven economy’, ‘networked economy’, and an ‘e-conomy’. These terms all express the fundamental point: that we now live in an knowledge-based global economy.
An International Monetary Fund article defines a ‘new economy’ as “one characterised by higher long-term growth that is due to a permanently higher growth rate in productivity stemming primarily from the production, adoption, and continued diffusion of ICT”.
The IMF article uses examples of industrial societies where the rapid adoption of ICT has been the driving force behind acceleration in labour productivity, such as in the United States during the 1990s. For instance, technological innovation resulted in sharp declines in computer prices of about 22 percent a year between 1995 and 2000. This meant industries could invest in information processing equipment and peripherals.
While it is all good and well to consider what the new economy has meant for the U.S. and European countries, there is far less discussion and consideration of developing countries and how they may (or may not) be benefiting. This is why Anthony P. D’Costa’s article is refreshing. He acknowledges that “knowledge-based economic activities are key to international competitiveness and productivity growth,” and that with industrialisation no longer the principal driver of economic growth, developing countries need to catch up in ICT development.
Whether or not developing countries can work effectively with the changing global regime, how they might utilise the open access to knowledge and information, and how they can adopt best practices (such as telemedicine, distance learning and e-government) are significant questions for development.
Developing countries are structurally disadvantaged in seeking the best from the global regime of ICT infrastructure, which is related to their lack of key ingredients such as human capital, physical infrastructure, and lack of venture capital to exploit ICTs. But D’Costa says this does not mean the doors are completely shut. Poor countries such as the Philippines, which have unwittingly created human capital, have shown they are able to interact with the global economy, adapt imported ideas and know-how and localise them.
D’Costa suggests that the old (non-ICT) economy and the traditional development concerns are equally important to secure the benefits of the new economy. Previously emphasised development needs, such as infrastructure investments and domestic market stimulation, are still relevant.
Gale T C Rigobert’s article continues in this same vein, examining the implications of the new economy for a country on the less-beneficial side of the digital divide: the Caribbean.
Rigobert says firms or national economies that fail to incorporate ICTs in their economic or productive structures are likely to be abandoned at the fringes of the global economy. The repercussions of this being: declining competitiveness, and negative or poor economic growth. This suggests that the ‘new economy’ threatens to increase the digital divide, with those countries already on top of ICT development maintaining an advantage over those countries still lacking in such developments.
Like D’Costa, Rigobert says for poor countries to benefit from ICTs, there are important social, institutional and cultural preconditions for entering the digital age and evolving into a knowledge society/ economy. The existence of an apparently daunting digital divide, however, raises significant doubt about the potential of ICTs to raise the living standards of the poor in the Caribbean.
So in this ‘new economy’, where knowledge has become a very important factor of production, countries like that of the Caribbean need to move toward fostering an innovation culture and environment to secure a place for itself among the technological leaders. Rigobert says this includes the need for a more vigorous attempt at resolving the technology access divide, skills divide, social capability divide, and the technology production divide.
It seems it is only then that “any significant strides can be made in narrowing the economic divide between the haves and the have-nots in the current techno-economic context”. If developing countries fail to make these necessary steps, they will continue to be left behind.
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Development as a wholistic process
I was starting to build a rather bleak picture of ICTs and development in Africa – there seemed to be a lot of policy making going on, and not enough projects with tangible results. Upon closer inspection, however, I have come to realise there are in fact numerous worthwhile projects of various shapes and forms all over Africa. One such program, the e-learning Africa news portal ‘Intel Teach Program’ , proved to be an excellent case study of ICTs development. This program promoted the effective use of technology in DZJ Mthebula High School in a semi-rural region of Limpopo province.
What struck me about this story were two key nuances: firstly that dumping technology in a community is useless unless the skills are taught for the consumption of and production using this technology. Secondly, this case study emphasised the importance of focusing on schools and introducing students to technology which can aid their learning experience, and teach them the skills they need to thrive in the knowledge economy/ information society.
Mthebula High School was donated computers by Telkom a few years ago, but none of the teachers were incorporating the technology into their instruction. School language teacher, Mercy Ntlemo, attributed this to most of the teachers lacking “the specific knowledge and training to integrate technology in any substantive way”. This meant the computers were gathering dust, barely used beyond basic information retrieval and simple word processing.
This example speaks to the larger debate within ICTs and development: development needs to happen on a multitude of different levels. It makes no sense to think you are aiding development by donating free technology like computers to those who lack the skills to utilise this technology effectively.
In this particular case, Ntlemo underwent the Intel Teach Program, a professional development program designed to help teachers integrate technology effectively in the classroom with the objective of helping students build 21st century skills. Ntlemo felt she really benefited from the training and following her success, many other teachers did the program, to help “conquer their technophobia”.
This training program exposed the teachers to new approaches for creating assessment tools and aligning lessons with educational learning goals and standards. Additionally, they discover new ways to incorporate the use of the Internet, Web page design, and student projects as vehicles for powerful learning.
As a result of the Intel Teach Program, Ntlemo says that technology is now an integral part of the curriculum at DZJ Mthebula High School, and project based learning is the norm. The training program revolutionised the way the teachers used the computers – a wonderful resource which until then were being completely underused. Ntlemo says the program “has revolutionised the way we teach.”
So what does a story such as this one teach us? It teaches us that we need to have a wholistic approach to development, and that development occurs within a particular context – such as lack of digital literacy. We need to understand the contexts of the communities needing developments in ICTs so that development does not become a worthless endeavour but rather a meaningful process of change.
To find out more on some of the interesting ICT development projects in Africa, visit the following links:
1. Un Economic Commissions for Africa
2. Acacia: Communities and the Information Society in Africa Program
3. APC Women’s networking support program
4. World Bank: Africa and the knowledge economy
What struck me about this story were two key nuances: firstly that dumping technology in a community is useless unless the skills are taught for the consumption of and production using this technology. Secondly, this case study emphasised the importance of focusing on schools and introducing students to technology which can aid their learning experience, and teach them the skills they need to thrive in the knowledge economy/ information society.
Mthebula High School was donated computers by Telkom a few years ago, but none of the teachers were incorporating the technology into their instruction. School language teacher, Mercy Ntlemo, attributed this to most of the teachers lacking “the specific knowledge and training to integrate technology in any substantive way”. This meant the computers were gathering dust, barely used beyond basic information retrieval and simple word processing.
This example speaks to the larger debate within ICTs and development: development needs to happen on a multitude of different levels. It makes no sense to think you are aiding development by donating free technology like computers to those who lack the skills to utilise this technology effectively.
In this particular case, Ntlemo underwent the Intel Teach Program, a professional development program designed to help teachers integrate technology effectively in the classroom with the objective of helping students build 21st century skills. Ntlemo felt she really benefited from the training and following her success, many other teachers did the program, to help “conquer their technophobia”.
This training program exposed the teachers to new approaches for creating assessment tools and aligning lessons with educational learning goals and standards. Additionally, they discover new ways to incorporate the use of the Internet, Web page design, and student projects as vehicles for powerful learning.
As a result of the Intel Teach Program, Ntlemo says that technology is now an integral part of the curriculum at DZJ Mthebula High School, and project based learning is the norm. The training program revolutionised the way the teachers used the computers – a wonderful resource which until then were being completely underused. Ntlemo says the program “has revolutionised the way we teach.”
So what does a story such as this one teach us? It teaches us that we need to have a wholistic approach to development, and that development occurs within a particular context – such as lack of digital literacy. We need to understand the contexts of the communities needing developments in ICTs so that development does not become a worthless endeavour but rather a meaningful process of change.
To find out more on some of the interesting ICT development projects in Africa, visit the following links:
1. Un Economic Commissions for Africa
2. Acacia: Communities and the Information Society in Africa Program
3. APC Women’s networking support program
4. World Bank: Africa and the knowledge economy
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
World Information Society Day passed us by…
This week I visited UNESCO's Communication and Information homepage , only to discover that the 17 May was World Information Society Day - a fact which had completely passed the Rhodes new media class by. As young people studying new media and exploring this notion of the ‘Information Society’, it seemed embarrassing we didn’t even know the day existed. As far as I’m concerned this day actually went unnoticed in South Africa as a whole, a rather disturbing realisation considering the focus of WISD is supposedly those on the furthest end of the digital divide.
That said, what is WISD all about; does it have any real significance? The UNESCO site says the day is celebrated each year to remind the world of the “vision of the World Summit on the Information Society to build ‘a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented information society’ based on fundamental human rights”.
That’s fantastic… but how is this day reminding the world of this vision if we aren’t aware of the day and what it means? This worries me, considering the vision they speak of starts seeming more like hot air than actual policy-making and active development and change programmes.
Judging from the links in and around UNESCO’s information about WISD, I get the impression it was more resolutions and re-affirming of previous development plans in the global ICT realm than real action. For instance, the message from UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, urged “policy-makers and industry leaders to put their minds together, and to work cooperatively with children and youth to produce suitable technologies, applications and services to facilitate access to information and communications technologies”.
He noted that young people are the driving force behind innovation in the development and use of new technologies, but the digital chasm leaves many unable to capitalise fully on the benefits of globalization. He emphasised that “young people everywhere must have equal opportunities to rise out of poverty and illiteracy and to realize their full potential”.
I agree of course, but the question remains: what is really being done on a practical level? How are organisations like UNESCO, which should hold responsibility for helping to facilitate ICT development globally, actually aiding this development? I wonder how many youth in Africa were aware of this grand notion of a WISD? How many will be empowered to the extent that they can really be the “driving force behind innovation in the development and use of new technologies”? I don’t mean to be cynical, and I recognise the need for strategy and goal-making, but if this has no real impact then we’ve completely missed the point. I hope WISD resolves to be the global promise, with a global reach and real affects next year.
That said, what is WISD all about; does it have any real significance? The UNESCO site says the day is celebrated each year to remind the world of the “vision of the World Summit on the Information Society to build ‘a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented information society’ based on fundamental human rights”.
That’s fantastic… but how is this day reminding the world of this vision if we aren’t aware of the day and what it means? This worries me, considering the vision they speak of starts seeming more like hot air than actual policy-making and active development and change programmes.
Judging from the links in and around UNESCO’s information about WISD, I get the impression it was more resolutions and re-affirming of previous development plans in the global ICT realm than real action. For instance, the message from UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, urged “policy-makers and industry leaders to put their minds together, and to work cooperatively with children and youth to produce suitable technologies, applications and services to facilitate access to information and communications technologies”.
He noted that young people are the driving force behind innovation in the development and use of new technologies, but the digital chasm leaves many unable to capitalise fully on the benefits of globalization. He emphasised that “young people everywhere must have equal opportunities to rise out of poverty and illiteracy and to realize their full potential”.
I agree of course, but the question remains: what is really being done on a practical level? How are organisations like UNESCO, which should hold responsibility for helping to facilitate ICT development globally, actually aiding this development? I wonder how many youth in Africa were aware of this grand notion of a WISD? How many will be empowered to the extent that they can really be the “driving force behind innovation in the development and use of new technologies”? I don’t mean to be cynical, and I recognise the need for strategy and goal-making, but if this has no real impact then we’ve completely missed the point. I hope WISD resolves to be the global promise, with a global reach and real affects next year.
Thursday, 17 May 2007
ICTs, Development and the New Economy: an introduction
In the following weeks I will be blogging on the topic of ‘ICTs, development and the new economy,’ a topic of great significance in a continent largely lagging behind in the digital age. We seem to be facing the unfortunate reality that the telecommunication revolution is increasing the divide between the wealthy and the poor, “creating two distinct classes of information haves and information have-nots” (Sonaike, 2004:41). This is disturbing considering the potential digital developments have to facilitate and encourage development – a potential governments, NGOs and Intergovernmental organisations should be harnessing. The digital revolution can be used to the benefit of those needing access to better information and can provide those who traditionally have been voiceless, to have their voices heard – if only we focus on making this a priority.
We need to understand that a so-called ‘information society’ cannot be measured according to the extent of internet access available in a country, but rather how and to what effect people are able to use these technologies. In Africa, although research shows all 54 countries on the continent have Internet access at least in their capital cities, “the global impact of their connectivity is negligible” (Sonaike, 2004:41). It is clear that, “having access to the Internet and being active participants in the digital revolution are two different things” (Sonaike, 2004:42), if you consider that computers in Africa are mostly used for secretarial work, and the Internet is mostly used for personal email transactions. This is in sharp contrast to ‘Northern’ countries like England and America, who are driving the digital revolution, shaping and determining information on the web, which is disseminated globally and impacts on people around the world.
My following blogs will address this notion of the ‘digital divide’; which refers to disparities in access to, and usage of, the telephone, computers and Internet within and between countries. We need to keep in mind that this divide is experienced on a variety of social levels – from income, education, age, gender, race, occupation, geographic location, language group and many other ‘divides’. Aside from the clear differences between third and first world countries, there are clear inequalities within African countries, with those currently benefiting from the Internet being an affluent “minority, urban-based elite” (Sonaike, 2004:42).
I will be addressing some of the reasons for Africa’s current lagging position in the global technology context – such as the lack of:
- Appropriate telecommunication infrastructure on the continent (and high cost of computer hardware, low bandwidth, restriction of Internet use to major cities)
- Material access i.e. possession of computers, network connections, etc
- Digital experience
- Skills access
Perhaps most importantly I want to address ideas as to how the new medium of technology can be utilised to the benefit of existing development priorities in Africa. Ideas as to how technology like the Internet can be “a partner, rather than a cog, in Africa’s development effort” (Sonaike, 2004: 43) are essential if we take development seriously – and we should. The implication of neglecting such efforts is an increasing world of inequalities, one where Africa at large will continue to suffer.
Works Cited
Sonaike, S. 2004. “The Internet and the Dilemma of Africa’s Development”. International Communication Gazette; 66; 41.
We need to understand that a so-called ‘information society’ cannot be measured according to the extent of internet access available in a country, but rather how and to what effect people are able to use these technologies. In Africa, although research shows all 54 countries on the continent have Internet access at least in their capital cities, “the global impact of their connectivity is negligible” (Sonaike, 2004:41). It is clear that, “having access to the Internet and being active participants in the digital revolution are two different things” (Sonaike, 2004:42), if you consider that computers in Africa are mostly used for secretarial work, and the Internet is mostly used for personal email transactions. This is in sharp contrast to ‘Northern’ countries like England and America, who are driving the digital revolution, shaping and determining information on the web, which is disseminated globally and impacts on people around the world.
My following blogs will address this notion of the ‘digital divide’; which refers to disparities in access to, and usage of, the telephone, computers and Internet within and between countries. We need to keep in mind that this divide is experienced on a variety of social levels – from income, education, age, gender, race, occupation, geographic location, language group and many other ‘divides’. Aside from the clear differences between third and first world countries, there are clear inequalities within African countries, with those currently benefiting from the Internet being an affluent “minority, urban-based elite” (Sonaike, 2004:42).
I will be addressing some of the reasons for Africa’s current lagging position in the global technology context – such as the lack of:
- Appropriate telecommunication infrastructure on the continent (and high cost of computer hardware, low bandwidth, restriction of Internet use to major cities)
- Material access i.e. possession of computers, network connections, etc
- Digital experience
- Skills access
Perhaps most importantly I want to address ideas as to how the new medium of technology can be utilised to the benefit of existing development priorities in Africa. Ideas as to how technology like the Internet can be “a partner, rather than a cog, in Africa’s development effort” (Sonaike, 2004: 43) are essential if we take development seriously – and we should. The implication of neglecting such efforts is an increasing world of inequalities, one where Africa at large will continue to suffer.
Works Cited
Sonaike, S. 2004. “The Internet and the Dilemma of Africa’s Development”. International Communication Gazette; 66; 41.
Friday, 30 March 2007
SciFest bootcamp - conclusions
SciFest has come to an end, leaving me with a lot to consider. I faced frustrations getting used to problematic equipment and programs, learnt the complexities of multi-tasking at events and the sleep-deprivation dealing with a lengthy production process. Some of what happened was out of my control, while other problems that arose were due to lack of planning or other faults on my part.
Elements out of my control included things like: sound recording equipment not working, PhotoStory program giving issues marrying sound and photos, and individuals not getting back to me with regard to planned interviews.
I could have improved by having more forward planning around stories. I felt my SciKidz photo story was well-planned but my climate story became too long and text heavy because i got too bogged down in the large quantity of information instead of planning and sticking to a focus. Secondly, i failed in the group work process, and worked primarily alone. This was not really what the SciFest coverage experience was supposed to be about.
All the negative points aside, SciFest gave me great insight into the multi-media production process and what is required in terms of quality and content of stories. This experience, while throwing us in the deep end, showed us what covering 'real-life' stories in a new media format involves and thus prepared us for the work in the coming terms. I feel enriched by the knowledge gained during the process and now feel better prepared for up-coming events such as the National Arts Festival next term.
Thank you to Jude for persevering, staying many a late night in the lab with us and being a pedantic pain! No really, thank you - i learnt more in one week than i thought i'd learn in a couple of months.
Elements out of my control included things like: sound recording equipment not working, PhotoStory program giving issues marrying sound and photos, and individuals not getting back to me with regard to planned interviews.
I could have improved by having more forward planning around stories. I felt my SciKidz photo story was well-planned but my climate story became too long and text heavy because i got too bogged down in the large quantity of information instead of planning and sticking to a focus. Secondly, i failed in the group work process, and worked primarily alone. This was not really what the SciFest coverage experience was supposed to be about.
All the negative points aside, SciFest gave me great insight into the multi-media production process and what is required in terms of quality and content of stories. This experience, while throwing us in the deep end, showed us what covering 'real-life' stories in a new media format involves and thus prepared us for the work in the coming terms. I feel enriched by the knowledge gained during the process and now feel better prepared for up-coming events such as the National Arts Festival next term.
Thank you to Jude for persevering, staying many a late night in the lab with us and being a pedantic pain! No really, thank you - i learnt more in one week than i thought i'd learn in a couple of months.
Wednesday, 28 March 2007
Scifest bootcamp part 2 - i'm bad at group work
Reflecting on this SciFest process has made me realise that I completely failed with regard to groupwork. For the purpose of SciFest, the class was divided into four pairs, and it has been interesting to see the dynamics within those different pairs. Some groups worked hand in hand on all the stories, while others (such as myself and Arther)ended up working on our stories on our own.
Each individual in the group was meant to produce one SciFest new media package and one photo slideshow - yet you were supposed to work on these stories as a pair. I found this concept a difficult to wrap my mind around, because I felt unsure about what level of investment Arther should have in my stories and vice versa.
This type of group work is best suited to a situation where the two indivuals are skilled in different areas and thus can assist one another in producing wholistic multi-media stories. This was problematic in our case because apart from my experience with photography, we were on equal footing with writing and audio recording/ editing skills.
On the first day of SciFest we headed out on every story together but I clearly felt the division between "my stories" - the ones i had come up with - and the one's Arther wanted to cover. He came with me to a couple of my lectures, but didn't really contribute anything to them or my follow up interviews and i largely was the same with his.
After the first day we ended up focusing on our different stories and apart from advising Arther at his photo story shoot, sub editing one of his stories and taking a couple of photos for him, i wasn't of any real assistance to him. Similarly, he has not contributed to either of my stories.
I attribute this to a failure on both our parts to fully utilise what could have been the benefits of working in a group. I really felt the struggle of working alone at some stages in the process, while in other ways it seemed more natural to me than having to take another individual into account along the way.
I know i will be taken to task on this issue and i can only say it has been yet another learning curve along the tumultuous road of SciFest. It has taught me to make group work arrangements from the beginning and develop a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities from the outset. Similarly, it would have helped if i had gained a clearer understanding from my lecturer regarding group work and the division of workload on the four stories between the two of us.
The best i can do is to work towards being a better group worker in the future!
Each individual in the group was meant to produce one SciFest new media package and one photo slideshow - yet you were supposed to work on these stories as a pair. I found this concept a difficult to wrap my mind around, because I felt unsure about what level of investment Arther should have in my stories and vice versa.
This type of group work is best suited to a situation where the two indivuals are skilled in different areas and thus can assist one another in producing wholistic multi-media stories. This was problematic in our case because apart from my experience with photography, we were on equal footing with writing and audio recording/ editing skills.
On the first day of SciFest we headed out on every story together but I clearly felt the division between "my stories" - the ones i had come up with - and the one's Arther wanted to cover. He came with me to a couple of my lectures, but didn't really contribute anything to them or my follow up interviews and i largely was the same with his.
After the first day we ended up focusing on our different stories and apart from advising Arther at his photo story shoot, sub editing one of his stories and taking a couple of photos for him, i wasn't of any real assistance to him. Similarly, he has not contributed to either of my stories.
I attribute this to a failure on both our parts to fully utilise what could have been the benefits of working in a group. I really felt the struggle of working alone at some stages in the process, while in other ways it seemed more natural to me than having to take another individual into account along the way.
I know i will be taken to task on this issue and i can only say it has been yet another learning curve along the tumultuous road of SciFest. It has taught me to make group work arrangements from the beginning and develop a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities from the outset. Similarly, it would have helped if i had gained a clearer understanding from my lecturer regarding group work and the division of workload on the four stories between the two of us.
The best i can do is to work towards being a better group worker in the future!
Monday, 26 March 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
