ICTlogy

[continued from e-Readiness in post-conflict and developing countries: a reflection (part I)].

Second question relates to what methodology would be more applicable in post-conflict countries, being the issue whether it should be better to apply an existing one (for the sake of comparability) or design and implement a customized one that would better fit our purposes / the country’s framework and needs.

Fostering the Information Society in post-conflict and developing countries.

I don’t really think, as I said, that there is just one solution or a common road-map to foster the Information Society. Without hesitation, each country, each region, each community could set their own successful strategy and have but just some things in common with another community… or with themselves in another moment of time.

But I can see three main trends or aspects to take into account.

ICTs and immediate relief

As it happens with the distinction between humanitarian action (or humanitarian aid) and development cooperation, I believe that in the first stages after an armed conflict or a natural disaster urgent measures of efficacy and efficiency apply. ICTs should be planned to mainly benefit logistics: not development, not empowerment, not higher goals. Basic infrastructures should be a priority to help national and foreign aid agencies to do their best.

A second step (can go in parallel with the former), and easily brought by Web 2.0 applications, could consist on some empowerment on the population to connect with their peers and kin: think of refugees or victims of natural disasters. But this is just a corollary of the efficacy and efficiency goals of the institutions: they do not only have to provide material relief, but psychological and social. It’s just efficient to set up a website where people can find and be found, by themselves, and not by centralizing everything at the headquarters.

In this train of thought, e-commerce or business e-readiness models and micro level measurements of ICT impact should prevail. We do not want to focus on the population appropriation of technology, but on the institutions’. Connectivity, networks, productivity (to better achieve their humanitarian goals). Thus, we should design our own methodologies (while inspired in others’) and own set of indicators, at the very micro level.

Development of institutions

It is way beyond doubt that development can only come in a proper framework. And this framework is called government (let’s include in this term both governance and government). Actually, this is but the second part of the former point: enforcement of institutions, now not ad hoc institutions (like foreign humanitarian aid agencies) but structural institutions.

My opinion is that the focus in this phase should be e-Government, which, at least, means thee things:

• ICT empowered institutions, measuring their access to technology, to capacity building, their supply of digital content and public services, etc.
• ICT empowered citizens, at least above a lower threshold so they can interact with their governments
• The sufficient infrastructures so governments and citizens can easily work with each other

Sectoral, government-focused indicators and assessment guides should be the ones used in this phase. Already established indicators and methodologies should be customized according to one country’s reality and specific needs and goals: e-Justice might not be a priority, but e-Administration; direct democracy (through electronic devices) might not be a priority, and strong engagement (e-participation) from the civil society might be very important.

e-Readiness for Development

Third phase is but the (only) phase that e-Readiness indices and rankings usually explain: how to benefit from ICTs to progress and achieve more welfare, by means of increased productivity, competitiveness, etc.

As the landscape has now become global (after the emergencies of the directly post-conflict issues, and after the main national institutions have been built), it is advisable to follow and use international data (i.e. rankings) to get an idea of a country’s overall performance, especially in relationship with their neighbors.

This does not mean that these should be the only tools to use, but only that some harmonization between a country’s customized tools and the global standards should be achieved, the reason being simple: not only e-readiness, but the whole economy is now competing at the global economy level, so just one set of rules applies: the international one.

Some conclusions

In my opinion, at early stages of development (such as post-conflict scenarios) only ad hoc initiatives should apply. A participatory (action) research approach can be absolutely useful. And afterwards trying to infer general conclusions to improve the model and make it valuable in broader contexts.

At stages where development (endogenous, self-centered) is not the issue, but competitiveness (exogenous, third-parties-dependent), the more globally agreed measurements, the better, with one caveat: these measurements should be improved to collect all aspects relevant to most countries.

Unfortunately, I think that we have neither one nor the other.

That someone with Marc Lepage‘s profile and experience asks for my opinion on several subjects related to e-Readiness is, to say the least, quite a compliment.

Questions are many but can be grouped in two:

• Are there any e-readiness models to be followed to draw Information Society strategies?
• What methodology would be more applicable in post-conflict countries: an existing one (for the sake of comparability) or a customized one?

These issues are really broad and I don’t think there is one solution but many, so I decided to write my thoughts here so other people can join and bring their insights.

e-Readiness models and Information Society strategies

Let’s put this really short. Nowadays, there are:

• e-readiness indices, collections of indicators and rankings, to measure the state of development (as defined by the authors of such measuring tools) of the Information Society, normally at the country level
• e-readiness guides or assessment methodologies to help, on a check-list basis, to determine the strengths and weaknesses in Information Society matters and, hence, serve as an inspiration to design your own strategy.

The main problem is that indices and guides do not go hand in hand. On one hand, indices are really global, mainly designed for developed countries, with a strong bias towards infrastructures and, most important, present a snapshot of isolated indicators, not providing the relationship — and causability — among them. On the other hand, guides are (usually) old (came up with the digital divide fever from the first years of the XXIst century), focused in just one aspect (usually e-commerce) and do not provide measuring tools (i.e. they are not necessarily using the same concepts as e-readiness indices.)

Concerning e-readiness models and assessment guides, there are many, but here comes a short selection:

Some indices

• ITU Digital Opportunity Index
• United Nations ICT Opportunity Index (ITU and UNCTAD, after George Sciadas‘s work
• The World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index
• The Economist Intelligence Unit e-Readiness Rankings
• OECD Key ICT Indicators (not an index)
• UNPAN E-government Readiness Index
• Find more here: ICT Data sources.

Some guides

• Center for International Development at Harvard University (2000) Readiness for the Networked World. A Guide for Developing Countries
• CSPP (2000) Readiness Guide for Living in the Networked World
• Adamal, A., Lanvin, B. & Schware,R. (2005) E-strategies Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit
• APEC (2000) E-Commerce Readiness Assessment Guide
• McConnell International (2001) Ready? Net. Go! Partnerships Leading The Global Economy. See also other works by McConnell International and Peppers & Rogers Group
• Find more here: Readings on e-Readiness.

So, trying to have a comprehensive tool would require to choose one guide and see how to use the several existing indices and indicators to measure the variables appearing in your guide. Or, instead, you can go your own way and try to obtain your own data, either because it is published by national statistics agencies or because you can collect them on your own. In the first case, it is likely that national agencies already provide all relevant data to e.g. ITU or OECD or they are not collecting it. In the second case, surveys are really expensive. If you do it just once, you won’t be able to analyze trends and impact of your strategies. If you do it several times, highest costs might make preferable to adapt your analysis to existing data than try and collect them without help. A mid-way solution is, of course, engage the national statistics agency and help them in their work (e.g. in the design).

Nevertheless, as said there are limitations in both measuring tools and assessment and strategy guides, namely

• Bias towards infrastructures.
• Sectoral focus, normally in e-Commerce or e-Government.
• Lack of focus in digital content and services.
• Poor data in digital literacy.
• Poor data in regulation and the legal framework.
• Lack of cross-data analysis (e.g. to see what’s the relationship between existence of installed capacity and digital literacy, or digital literacy and intensity of use of digital public services) necessary to establish priorities and road-maps.
• Bias towards developed countries’ focused strategies: context is usually provided from a western/developed point of view
• Bias towards state-of-the-art technology: goals and optimums are usually set on a basis of best-technology-available, not most-suitable-technology

[continues in e-Readiness in post-conflict and developing countries: a reflection (part II)].

The World Economic Forum’s Global Information Technology Report 2007-2008 is out. In my opinion, it does not bring any surprises, but reinforces some trends that we’ve been seeing lately:

• The increasing strength and importance of wireless technologies to get connected to the Network
• A gradual shift of the research focus from quantitative/economic impact analysis towards more qualitative/social impact analysis
• Hence, the realization that ICTs are much more than (information) productivity tools, and they have a role in socialization (through communication), mediated by digital literacy

Part of the Global Information Technology Report gets its data from the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey, which, conducted annually, captures the perceptions of the leading business and investment decision-makers worldwide (many of whom represent the Forum’s member companies). As a qualitative survey, and based on perceptions, all conclusions arising from it might be taken with tons of caution. Nevertheless, there are some findings that, even if taken with caution, are worth deserving a thoughtspan:

[click to enlarge]

As the chart shows, there is a clear relationship between quality of an educational system (at the aggregate country level) and the existence of not computers but Internet access in schools. As said, while Internet access in schools is measured quantitatively after surveys sent to sample schools in every country, the Quality of the Educational System is a variable measured through a qualitative, subjective indicator after asking the 8,000 interviewees of the Executive Opinion Survey. In the survey, the respondents range the educational system from 0 to 7 whether the Educational system
[serves the] needs of competitive economy.

Depending on how you agree with the definition of “quality” for a national educational system, and how you’d like the reality to fit your beliefs, different interpretations arise:

• The more straightforward: Internet access increases the quality of the educational system. The more Internet access, the better education.
• Inversely, we can say that high quality educational systems are more eager to introduce the Internet in schools than lower quality ones. The more quality of the system, the more (awareness in) the use of Internet.
• There’s a relationship between educational quality (as understood by the Executive Opinion Survey) and Internet access in schools, but we do not know which is the cause and which the consequence: they just happen to go hand in hand.

Even if some of the previous statements are sweet music for cyberoptimists (like me), I wouldn’t strongly stand for any of it: there are too many loose ends to be axiomatic.

But one thing is absolutely clear: even if we cannot establish (yet) any causality between quality and educational Internet access, the perception is that some degree of relationship does exist. And if this perception is widely shared at both the decision-taker and policy-maker levels, some consequences in the short run would be likely to be expected:

1. Firms would be more likely to hire candidates with strong digital competences, as it looks like Internet and quality go together, and quality means a more competitive economy (i.e. firm).
2. Stress would then be put in teaching digital skills in the design of educational strategies, along with the introduction of the Internet in the school
3. If the Internet — this huge information silo — enters the classroom, the role of the educator should change, and shift from an information holder to a knowledge acquisition enabler or facilitator
4. Open educational resources should be coming in and out of the classroom both as input and output
5. This abundance of (educational) material would require more and better reputation systems and information assessment systems, all of them based in more and better digital skills
6. And back to #1

In the most conservative scenario, I see this as the perception of inflation: regardless whether there is not the slightest chance for inflation to happen, if citizens believe so, there’ll be inflation. The sensation is now that digital skills matter and that we are going to evaluate education under this light. Schools must not just let themselves go along with the current (i.e. the cyberhype), but neither swimming against it.

Share:

Two years ago we here spoke about e-Readiness and the Human Development Index. The chart we then plotted was similar to this one:

[click to enlarge]

This chart now adds two tendency curves: one (exponential) for countries with a Human Development Index (HDI) over 7.00, and another one (linear, though absolutely irrelevant, on the other hand) for countries under 7.00 — though there are lots of countries missing: too poor to appear on the charts…).

Even if the regression is not really accurate (not at all) we can more or less see a relationship between e-Readiness and Development (as measured as HDI).

One of the main criticisms I have against how the digital divide, the Information Society or e-Readiness is measured (see below “More info” for a couple of references) is that it either takes one of the following paths:

• Focus almost exclusive on infrastructures
• A too broad approach thus including “analogue noise” (i.e. non-digital indicators or analogue economy indicators — provided such a thing makes sense, which I believe it does in the field of development)

In any case, huge voids appear: digital literacy levels, the regulation framework and richness of content and e-services.

Are these lacks relevant?

Let’s take a look at the measurement of Inequality (from the HDI database, calculated after the World Bank’s World Development Indicators), comparing the ratio of 20% richest ones to 20% poorest ones, and ratio of 10% richest ones to 10% poorest ones. And we chart it against the year 2007 World Economic Forum’s Networked Readiness Index (we plot the second one logarithmically, just for a change):

[click to enlarge]

[click to enlarge]

As can be easily seen in both comparisons — linear for the 20% to 20% inequality; logarithmically for the 10% to 10% inequality — there does not seem to be any kind of relationship between e-Readiness and Inequality. But whose problem is this? the reality’s or our models’? Does it really make sense that a country with highest inequalities can be as e-ready as another one with a more balanced income/wealth distribution?

It is no news that income inequalities carry on associated inequalities in education, in political stability, social and community engagement, security and crime, etc. So, can a society with low/uneven human capital, political instability, poor community engagement, high crime rates… be as e-ready as another one with better scores in these indicators? Intuition clearly and loudly shouts no, not at all, by any means.

Then, where’s the problem? In my opinion, it undoubtedly is in how we measure how good our degree of Information Society development is.

And, if so, where are we failing? I guess here are some places to look at:

• We pay too much attention to infrastructures. They are needed, of course, but they are means, not ends. ICT infrastructures should be seen as a necessary condition for ICT development, but not as a sufficient condition.
• We quite always forget about digital literacy, getting rid of it with a simple “number of Internet/PC/mobile phone users” indicator, an indicator which does not measure how different uses can leverage ICTs for development.
• Even if we approach digital literacy, aggregate measures do not discriminate between different users and the individual benefits they get, or how their different levels of skills impact on their productivity or their employability.
• At the aggregate level, it is easy that big firms’ ICT achievements and Governments’ big investments overshadow poor ICT adoption and performance by SMEs, thus provoking a paradox: at the aggregate level, ICT investment and consumption is great, but “no one” is using them (a reframing of Solow paradox?).
• Our knowledge on how ICTs affect social parameters — out of the Economy arena — is way too poor. So, we are having tough times to incorporate such parameters in our e-Readiness models and indices. Does e-Administration, e-Government and e-Democracy matter? At what level? Does ICT skills matter in multi-factor productivity? At what level? Can this be included in our models?

Put short: I guess we are missing people in our models. I am not saying it is easy to do, but we are actually missing the key.

More info

• Peña-López, I. (2007). ICTs for development: from e-Readiness to e-Awareness. Seminar imparted in Barcelona, November 20th, 2007 at the Executive Master in e-Governance, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
• Peña-López, I. (2007). Unpeeling the layers of the digital divide: category thresholds and relationships within composite indices. ICTlogy Working Paper Series #2. Karlstad: ICTlogy.

In a recent event where I was invited to debate about the need whether to foster the Information Society, I was shocked about some positions from both some of the speakers on the round table I participated in and the audience.

The starting point was: is there a need to foster the Information Society, or the Web 2.0 is a sufficient empowerer so there’s no reason to set up centralized strategies and policies?

One of the first arguments to come to debate can be summed up by “if people find no interest on the Internet, they will not use it, even if the infrastructures are ready and affordability is good enough”.Which I absolutely share: people like Lenhart (2000), Compaine (2001) or Parks Associates (2007) have already given evidence about this fact — this is, of course, especially relevant in developed countries, but it is also true in the poorest parts of them, so extrapolation to developing ones could be possible.

The next argument comes straightforward: we cannot force anyone to enter the Information Age. Again, I agree.

Disagreement comes with the next statement, primarily defended by the political representatives in the room: neither should we force anyone to enter the Information Age nor should we try to convince them to. Otherwise, we would be patronizing them, being paternalistic and acting like enlightened elites, and so on. We have to stop being cyberoptimists: people know better than anyone what their needs are, if people just want to share their photos, the only thing we [the government] have to do is to offer [subsidized] Flickr courses for anyone.

The argument is: don’t trust the doctor, because he’s being an enlightened elite prescribing antibiotics for your infection (not trying to save your life); don’t trust anyone that tells you to fix your roof, because he’s being paternalistic and patronizing (not just giving advice against it collapsing with the next rain).

The evidence of the economic impact of ICTs is great and growing. And there is plenty of people out there doing research about the issue. Elites? Not at all: people (scholars, politicians and experts in general) whose job (they are paid for it) is to give advice i.e. on the consequences on the job market of being digitally literate… or illiterate. You can disagree on interpretations, but not on data.

Honestly, I think that, these days, the difference between cyberoptimists and cyberskeptics is tiny:

• Cyberoptimists will tell you that there’s plenty of evidence of the coming of age of the Information Society and that the potential possibilities are many
• Cyberskeptics will tell you that there’s no evidence of huge benefits of entering the Information Society, but will agree that there are huge losses of not doing it (i.e. you might not increase your productivity being digitally literate, but you’ll surely loose it if you’re not)

The rest of the story is about swindlers and cyberblind. Yours to choose.

Today I imparted a seminar belonging to the Executive Master in e-Governance organized by the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and partnered by the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.

General information

• Details of the presentation (including slides to download)
• Slides on Slideshare
• Recommended Bibliography

I just want to thank the attendants to the course for being such an interesting audience and for making me think because of their witty questions.

Syllabus

Information and Communication Technologies for Development: ICT4D

• Food or computers?
• Efficacy, efficiency
• Leapfrogging Development
• Second Bests
• Endogenous development

The concept of access and the measurement of the Knowledge Society

• The Telecommunications Model: limitations
• The Broadcasting Model: limitations
• Access vs. Ownership: different solutions
• Access vs. use

Digital Divide: a holistic approach

• A five tier model
• Old and new divides

• Hardware
• Software
• The broadband divide
• Informational Literacy
• Content and Intellectual Property
• e-Awareness and the leadership divide

e-Readiness and Web 2.0 for e-Governance in Developing Countries

• e-Participation and e-Democracy
• Censorship circumvention and freedom of speech
• Transparency and accountability
• Law enforcement
• Open Access and access to knowledge

Slides

Recommended Bibliography