Farmers are reluctant to pay for information. However, once the economic advantage is communicated in a clear and unambiguous manner, then rural folks could be motivated to pay for such information and services. ICT is like a bus which comes to the village at a particular time of the day. If we miss that bus, we have miss our journey. Therefore, rural citizen will understand the value of ict based information and services only if the information or service have economic impact on their lives. Eg. Market price information provides buying and selling decisions. Unless, the information and services delivered through ICT are translated into economic empowerment or social empowerment, then the exercise may not be sustainable. Hence, any ICT intervention should be backed by socio economic impact assessment, which quantify the economic gains or percieved value to society.
Thanks for liking the analogy, but this is what ICT actually means in the context of ruralities. The bus is the main lifeline for rural people for transportation of their goods/products to market. The bus usually runs only once a day and those who do not come to the pickup point in time, they have missed the market and their days or weeks earning. (since markets in rural areas are held weekly). The challenge for ICT providers is to provide reliable, accurate, consistent and relevant information and for the bus to ply regularly and consistently. Many ICT initiatives usually run as long as the ICT champion is around. Once the ICT champion is out of the scene, the initiative also loses steam and eventually disappear.
Broadly agree with you. However, the reluctance is from a fear of exploitation & disbeleif (too good to hear) in what is being told to him. We have overcome this problem by selling agri information to farmers on their mobile phone. We have sold our subscription to nearly 400,000 farmers in 13 states across India. However, we are still facing the same issue of convincing each new farmer about our Service. We are exploring ways to create sponsored/subsidised trials so that farmer does not have to pay or pays very little to experience the service and subsequently can purchase on his own upon seeing value. The returns our farmers have reported are in the range of $100 to $10000. So a small subscription fee of $15 for a year to receive all occupational and functional information needs personalized to each individual in the form of simple sms everyday becomes a strong value proposition.
Rural development is focusing on farmers as primary producers. The relationship between markets and farmers is more complex. Primary producers are engaged in markets not just as producers but also as consumers. Many of them are only engaged in markets for exchange of goods/services. An understanding of the relationship between markets and the poor must consider the farmers as consumers as well as producers; consumption and production of different goods/services; needs/preference of different social, economic and cultural groups. Information plays a crucial role in markets, more people know about the price, quality, value and effectiveness of goods/services; the more likely they are to secure them at prices and on terms that suit them. Markets in which buyers/sellers are well informed will usually be more economically efficient. The flow of information can be improved using radio, telecentres and mobile phones; mobile phones have a significant impact as farmers are often appraised.
I could not agree less with Olaferz on this. On one hand we can see at middlemen as necessary evil as they provide the required service or market linkage to resource poor farmers. They also play an important role in facilitating the transfer of goods and services on commission. However, some become greedy and start exploiting the gullible farmers and spin all sort of stories to their advantage. Lack of information for farmers is a hindrance and a handicap. This is where ICT can play a major role.
Jenny AkerTufts UniversityUnited States of America
I agree that ICTs can play a crucial role in providing information to farmers, traders and consumers. I also agree that the goal of ICT shoudn't be to remove the middlemen -- in many cases they provide services that are crucial.
At the same time, information is usually necessary but not sufficient in order for ICTs to have a positive impact on poorer farmers and consumers. If a farmer has access to better information, but the buyers' market is a monopoly, this won't transfer into better prices for the farmer. Similarly, if a farmer learns which market has the best price, but there isn't a road allowing him/her to get there, again, this information won't translate into action.
Information is one service, and an important one, that ICTs can provide. But they will only have a positive impact if we understand the broader marketing context that farmers face.
Rafaa GhobrialDocumentation and Information Centre, National Centre for Research Sudan
Agriculture is considered the main source of economic growth and livelihood in of the Sudan especially in rural areas, i.e. constitute 75% of this coummnity. Sudanl has lunched reforms in national strategy for agriculture and recognized that knowledge is a critical factor in improving agricultural production and food security as the most important sector in Sudan’s economy. The statement of Ajit Maru of the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (2008) concerning Improving Agriculture Knowledge Sharing, Education and Learning through Collaboration and Partnerships based on ICT is the real sound for socio-economic value .
There is almost no value in trying to analyze the socio-economic impact of ICTs in rural areas!
Not because there is no impact, but because it's almost impossible to grasp what's going on in this fast evolving scene.
We can comfortably assume there is a huge impact, given that mobile phones and their use are exploding across rural areas, with the second wave of smart phones chasing the first one, and I already observe first indications of the third wave taking off in rural areas: Laptops!
These waves of technological change are washing over diverse remote areas I have known and worked in over the years, resulting in effects that keep stunning me. Rural people spend a surprising amount of money on connectivity.
Very little of this was driven by any projects. As a matter of fact most ICT projects and programs I observe struggle to catch up with the fast moving reality, often finding themselves side tracked by new technology.
Why analyze any of this? It's just happening. All we can do is resignedly accept that:
1. ICTs will happen in rural areas, no matter what, with or without development projects trying to support ICTs in rural areas.
2. They obviously have an impact, but that impact will remain very hard to track, and predict
3. You don't invest in ICTs, you invest in providing new possibilities that connectivity makes available.
4. The real challenge isn't to know what impacts ICTs can have on rural development. The real challenge is to dream up all the things rural people may want to do with new connective possibilites.
Farmers are reluctant to pay for information. However, once the economic advantage is communicated in a clear and unambiguous manner, then rural folks could be motivated to pay for such information and services. ICT is like a bus which comes to the village at a particular time of the day. If we miss that bus, we have miss our journey. Therefore, rural citizen will understand the value of ict based information and services only if the information or service have economic impact on their lives. Eg. Market price information provides buying and selling decisions. Unless, the information and services delivered through ICT are translated into economic empowerment or social empowerment, then the exercise may not be sustainable. Hence, any ICT intervention should be backed by socio economic impact assessment, which quantify the economic gains or percieved value to society.
Love the analogy of the bus!!! Right on
Thanks for liking the analogy, but this is what ICT actually means in the context of ruralities. The bus is the main lifeline for rural people for transportation of their goods/products to market. The bus usually runs only once a day and those who do not come to the pickup point in time, they have missed the market and their days or weeks earning. (since markets in rural areas are held weekly). The challenge for ICT providers is to provide reliable, accurate, consistent and relevant information and for the bus to ply regularly and consistently. Many ICT initiatives usually run as long as the ICT champion is around. Once the ICT champion is out of the scene, the initiative also loses steam and eventually disappear.
Broadly agree with you. However, the reluctance is from a fear of exploitation & disbeleif (too good to hear) in what is being told to him. We have overcome this problem by selling agri information to farmers on their mobile phone. We have sold our subscription to nearly 400,000 farmers in 13 states across India. However, we are still facing the same issue of convincing each new farmer about our Service. We are exploring ways to create sponsored/subsidised trials so that farmer does not have to pay or pays very little to experience the service and subsequently can purchase on his own upon seeing value. The returns our farmers have reported are in the range of $100 to $10000. So a small subscription fee of $15 for a year to receive all occupational and functional information needs personalized to each individual in the form of simple sms everyday becomes a strong value proposition.
Rural development is focusing on farmers as primary producers. The relationship between markets and farmers is more complex. Primary producers are engaged in markets not just as producers but also as consumers. Many of them are only engaged in markets for exchange of goods/services. An understanding of the relationship between markets and the poor must consider the farmers as consumers as well as producers; consumption and production of different goods/services; needs/preference of different social, economic and cultural groups. Information plays a crucial role in markets, more people know about the price, quality, value and effectiveness of goods/services; the more likely they are to secure them at prices and on terms that suit them. Markets in which buyers/sellers are well informed will usually be more economically efficient. The flow of information can be improved using radio, telecentres and mobile phones; mobile phones have a significant impact as farmers are often appraised.
I could not agree less with Olaferz on this. On one hand we can see at middlemen as necessary evil as they provide the required service or market linkage to resource poor farmers. They also play an important role in facilitating the transfer of goods and services on commission. However, some become greedy and start exploiting the gullible farmers and spin all sort of stories to their advantage. Lack of information for farmers is a hindrance and a handicap. This is where ICT can play a major role.
I agree that ICTs can play a crucial role in providing information to farmers, traders and consumers. I also agree that the goal of ICT shoudn't be to remove the middlemen -- in many cases they provide services that are crucial.
At the same time, information is usually necessary but not sufficient in order for ICTs to have a positive impact on poorer farmers and consumers. If a farmer has access to better information, but the buyers' market is a monopoly, this won't transfer into better prices for the farmer. Similarly, if a farmer learns which market has the best price, but there isn't a road allowing him/her to get there, again, this information won't translate into action.
Information is one service, and an important one, that ICTs can provide. But they will only have a positive impact if we understand the broader marketing context that farmers face.
Agriculture is considered the main source of economic growth and livelihood in of the Sudan especially in rural areas, i.e. constitute 75% of this coummnity. Sudanl has lunched reforms in national strategy for agriculture and recognized that knowledge is a critical factor in improving agricultural production and food security as the most important sector in Sudan’s economy. The statement of Ajit Maru of the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (2008) concerning Improving Agriculture Knowledge Sharing, Education and Learning through Collaboration and Partnerships based on ICT is the real sound for socio-economic value .
There is almost no value in trying to analyze the socio-economic impact of ICTs in rural areas!
Not because there is no impact, but because it's almost impossible to grasp what's going on in this fast evolving scene.
We can comfortably assume there is a huge impact, given that mobile phones and their use are exploding across rural areas, with the second wave of smart phones chasing the first one, and I already observe first indications of the third wave taking off in rural areas: Laptops!
These waves of technological change are washing over diverse remote areas I have known and worked in over the years, resulting in effects that keep stunning me. Rural people spend a surprising amount of money on connectivity.
Very little of this was driven by any projects. As a matter of fact most ICT projects and programs I observe struggle to catch up with the fast moving reality, often finding themselves side tracked by new technology.
Why try analyzing any impact of this?
Why analyze any of this? It's just happening. All we can do is resignedly accept that:
1. ICTs will happen in rural areas, no matter what, with or without development projects trying to support ICTs in rural areas.
2. They obviously have an impact, but that impact will remain very hard to track, and predict
3. You don't invest in ICTs, you invest in providing new possibilities that connectivity makes available.
4. The real challenge isn't to know what impacts ICTs can have on rural development. The real challenge is to dream up all the things rural people may want to do with new connective possibilites.
Ueli Scheuermeier