Forum: "ICT for Rural Economic Development" November, 2010
1. What is the value of analyzing the socio-economic impact of ICT in rural areas?
23/11/2010
Question 1. What is the value of analyzing the socio-economic impact of ICT in rural areas?
Submitted by Benjamin Kwasi Addom on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:27
I think we first need to know information needs of the rural communities. If we don't know the information needs of the communities and we ge ahead to implement any ICT project (as is the case in most ICT projects in rural areas), it will be difficult for us to analyze the socio-economic impacts of the project.
So:
1) What are the development needs of these rural areas?
2) What is the existing information structure of the rural area? - what are the existing potentials of the people to access information/knowledge?
3) What are the 'rooms' for improving information access in these areas?
If these are answered first before new ICT projects are implemented, we can analyze the impacts on these areas.
Thanks
Ben
Submitted by Roxanna Samii on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 08:23
Ben, you are absolutely right. The first step is to understand what is it that poor rural people NEED and also understand what is that they WANT.
It would be nice to hear your views as to why it is important to assess the socio-economic impact of ICTs in rural areas, considering that if something does not work, common sense tells us to stop investing and finding out what is not working and fixing it!!!!
Submitted by fred ahimbisibwe on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 05:24
Good thinking Ben.
However, you have advanced the issue of determining the information needs of the rural communities ; but what approach should be used to determine the information needs? I suggest that the information needs of the rural communities or any other settings, should be participatorily determined and addressed if one has got to achieve sustainable ict initiatives in the communities. I think this approach would go alongway in eliciting ownership,patronange and cost sharing for the ict use in agricultural development.
Otherwise the ict related projects in rural areas shall alwys be seen as white elephants and the equipment will always remain covered in their boxes upon delivery to the beneficairy communities.
fred (Rural Economist).
Submitted by Pat Heslop-Harrison on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:04
"You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics" quipped the economist Robert Solow in the year he won the Nobel Prize (1987). Is there any evidence that he was wrong? Certainly there is no change in rates of economic growth, or efficiency, in apparently highly computerized sectors such as banks or Western shops in the last couple of decades. So what should one look for in the impact of ICT in rural areas? I assume it is separated from other communications channels.
In contrast to ICT, the Nobel-prize winning concept of Solow's - the determinants of economic growth can be separated out into increases in inputs (labour and capital) and technical progress, but 80% of the growth is attributable to technical progress - applies exactly to agriculture, where new varieties and better agronomy have a strongly techical basis.
Submitted by Michael Riggs on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 18:11
This is a very interesting comment, reminding me how many years have passed since I last debated Solow's Paradox. Thank you for making me think again!
I and others do not agree with your statement about growth and computerized sectors. Studies have shown since the 1990s that investment in IT has a positive relationship with productivity, particularly in service industries. However, as you point out these would be based in developed economies, so we have to question the relevance in our discussion here.
Another intersting read is "Productivity and ICT: a review of the evidence" by M. Draca, R. Sadun, and J. Van Reenen (2006).
For our current online discussion, I think it is very important to point out that ICT is not only a matter of the "T", technology. It is necessary to view ICT as a process using technology that may (or may not) improve the movement of information in such a way as to enhance decision making, empower individuals, etc.
Submitted by Michael Riggs on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 18:11
There is agreement that the the Cobb-Douglas model of economic growth applies to agriculture. New agricultural technologies impact total factor productivity (TFP). But then what is an agricultural technology? Even limited to crop varieties and agronomy, it certainly includes particular cases of ICT these days. For example, the field servers used in Asia http://wgrass.media.osaka-cu.ac.jp/gisideas08/viewpaper.php?id=266 I would also argue that our definition needs to be even wider in the case of economic analysis of factors that make up TFP in agriculture. (My thesis was on trade-induced learning in the agriculture sector.)
I hope this sounds reasonable, even if you do not agree. In the mean time I will try to recall more of my work in this area. ;-)
Submitted by Jenny Aker on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 13:20
While I agree in theory that ICTs can increase productivity, and there is value in measuring this, I think that there are 2 challenges:
1. GDP, growth, productivity are all measures of producer surplus, not consumer surplus. To the extent that ICTs have an impact upon consumer surplus (which they can), this won't be captured in the GDP or growth measures.
2. I think that looking at links between GDP and ICT penetration can be a bit misleading, and many of our studies should focus more on the micro level. For example, Niger has had mobile phones since 2001, yet is still ranked the poorest country on the UN's HDI. DOes this mean that cell phones haven't improved productivity in Niger? Not necessarily. We can't observe what Niger would have been like WITHOUT cell phones -- which is the relevant question here. Incomes could have been lower.
I think that finding (or showing) GDP/productivity-ICT links might be elusive, which is okay -- if we focus on more micro-level, and ICT-specific project impacts.
Submitted by Roxanna Samii on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 08:25
Path - how about broadening our view of ICT beyond just computers.... what about rural radio, what about mobile telephony, what about blending old and new ICTs....
Submitted by Premprakash Saboo on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 09:58
*Information is about personalization. Radios/TVs does not offer personalization as they are general broadcast.
Everyone wants to know solutions about his individual problems. Its about "I", "ME", "MY"
Where would I get best price for my crop?
What should I do to prevent a particular disease?
Where would I get loan at the cheapes rate?
What is the Weather forecast for MY location?
*Information should be in the pocket all the time. Information should be stored and available for consumption later - Only mobile phone offers this facility. TV/Radios does not. There are areas in Developing world, where electricity is available for not more then few hours in a day. How would other mediums work??
*Other tools (TV/Radio/Computers) have existed for long. However, Mobile phones have become preferred tool to consume information. Developing countries Rural area has far greater concentration of mobile phones then Computers, Sattelite TV then National TV
Submitted by Luca Servo on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 17:31
I want to spend a word in favor of Radio. This media is more modern and flexible than what we think. This is particularly true in developing countries, where Rural and Community Radio stations are spread around most of the countries.
Radio can in fact be highly "customized" as for content production and distribution. Thanks to the mobile telephony the virtual circle between radio broadcasters and their public is now closed. The communication is nowadays a two-ways communication flow which starts from the radio, arrives to the listeners being they single or group of people or entire villages, and comes back to the broadcasters via a phone call or an sms.
This means that through Community radios, which are small radio stations scattered around rural areas, created by the community to serve the community, it is possible to debate, train or just provide information about many topics of common interest.
Radio can offer other main benefits: very low cost equipment, large distribution, no skills needed to listen to, and large economies of scale.
I totally agree with Roxy suggesting we should use more radio as a natural complement to other tools, like mobile phones and Internet.
Submitted by Krishna Chandra Mishra on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:26
The value of ICT intervention in rural areas can only be assessed if that provides some tangible opportunity to the rural people which meets their socio-economic needs.There is a need to analyse the value of ICT impact as the acceptability by the rural people will be there if those analysis are shown to them.An objective methodology should be designed for a concurrent evaluation of all the ICT in Rural Areas projects so that corrections can simultaneously be carried out along with the implementation.
Submitted by Kilber Garcia del Aguila on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:40
I share your opinion. Why do we have left rural areas in countries. This leads to an unprecedented migration to urban areas, leaving land and wealth by a lack of support. The introduction of ICT must serve the development of rural areas, but it is important to take into account the geographical, infrastructure (roads), economic and social. Rural areas should be integrated into the context of development of a region or country, because if we treat it individually, it does not work. For example the creation of a technological center in rural areas, would be a great support optimal functioning of ICT.
Submitted by Roxanna Samii on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 08:27
Do we need a new set of indicators and new methodology, or can we use an existing one? Have you conducted ICT related impact assessment. It would be useful if colleagues on this forum could share the methodology and their experience in conducting ICT related assessments
Submitted by P S Janaki Krishna (Dr.Mrs.) on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:33
I am Dr (Mrs) Janaki Krishna working as Associate Professor and Coordinator for PGDM- Biotechnology Programme at the Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, India.
Both 'The Value' and 'Value Addition' are amazing if we conduct 'Ex Post' Impact assessment for the ICT projects that are already implemented and/or being implemented, as these studies give us leads and directions for conceptualising new proejcts by way of bridging the gaps or by way of circumventing the old problems. The lessons learnt through these projects after analysing the impacts that were created whether socially or economically coupled with 'Ex ante' impact assessment studies for new ICT projects give objective directions and will definetly have a value on improving socioeconomic conditions in rural areas.
Submitted by Rami Eid-Sabbagh on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:38
i see the value in analyzing the socio-economic impact of icts in rural areas in many different ways:
- "real-time" managemenent/adjustment/steering of projects
- identification of the major impact areas (and also linked to specific technology (e.g. mobile - financial and social impact, radio - political and educational impact))
- identification of positive and negative side effects
- learning from failures and best practices with analytical proof which leads to improvement of livelihoods due to concrete informationen and not guessing
- means to promote use of icts where applicable
- justification of ict use
in general the analysis would also help to categorize ict use and its impact and could lead to some sort of ict handbook or toolbox in later stages.
Submitted by Michael Riggs on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 18:16
Thank you for these comments. In fact there are some ICT handbooks/tookits available or in development. We will talk more about these when discussion starts under question 2 of this forum.
Submitted by Anja Kiefer on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 12:02
some benefits of impact assessments have already been listed here in this discussion.
Such assessments can show whether an ICT4D project really has an impact (economic, socio-economic, or other) on the lives of people.
Sometimes, though, it seems that impact analyses are primarily conducted for the benefit of the donor, to proof that the investment in the project was money well spent and to be able to list positive figures in donor reports. Quite some time and effort go into generating these reports to satisfy donors.
But are these results then really used to improve project design, to focus on aspects that have a clear impact, and to abort projects that don't work? Or would it be better for beneficiaries if resources spent on impact assessments were used for the project directly?
So, in short:
Are impact assessments of value for the donor or for beneficiaries?
Submitted by Olaf Erz on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 13:01
As I mentioned earlier impact should be appraised by the users/beneficiaries and from their own perspective. From the donor point of view a good project/programme should be a project/programme that has a positive impact in the eyes of the users/beneficiaries. The impact assessment should be made in a collective, participatory and continuing learning process among all stakeholders. We at IICD measure impact at satisfaction-, awareness-, empowerment and economic level on an annual base over a period of at least five years. Questionnaires are being disseminated to project/programme staff, the project/programme users and beneficiaries. A focus group discussion is followed in order to discuss the findings with the stakeholders and to agree on necessary adjustments and improvements. Consequently the teams are aware on how their project/programme is being perceived and for IICD to what extend the project/programme objectives have been reached.
Submitted by Premprakash Saboo on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 15:03
If the impact assessment of any innvoaton is solid & positive for the beneficiaries, there would remain littles doubt on the effectiveness of the spend made by donors. Development Impact assessment and Donor benefit assessment is more or less aligned, if the Key Performance Indicators are agreed before hand.
Submitted by Shalini Kala on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:23
ICTs are touching our lives like never before.Even a few years ago it was difficult to imagine how quickly & deeply they would penetrate rural&isolated areas.The jury is still out on whether ICTs drive rural prosperity of not, however, there is no getting away from the fact that they are there&in our faces.Does it then not make sense to study how they change and influence our societies?In Asia largest number of the world's rural poor reside though it has also seen tremendous increase in mobile phones,it would be useful to see what role ICTs play in the process of rural transformation.How can their power be leveraged to make information a key driver of positive change? ENRAP, a collaborative initiative of IFAD and IDRC, supported ex-post evaluations and action-research pilots in Asia over 2009-1010.A set of interesting findings has just come out and these are available in 6 papers at http://www.enrap.org/research/icts-for-livelihoods-research/icts-for-li…
Submitted by Rama Rao Darapuneni on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:50
The experiences with assessment of radio and TV have significant impact on the effective use of these two traditional tools. Such studies helped in developing agri professionals to develop appropriate content and deliver. There was sufficient time for spread of these ICT tools and this gave sufficient time and scope for professionals to use them. We are in the process of using internet but see mobiles every where. The current ICT tools are evolving fast and agri-systems are slow to catchup. In such scenario, simultaneous feedback on the effectiveness of the medium use and its societal impact is more relevant now than in the past.
Submitted by Olaf Erz on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 12:41
Although there is a growing experience in using ICT4RD, the evidence is still weak. Many ICT initiatives have been pilot projects which have been implemented with different methodologies. We at IICD believe that ICT has real value in development and can make a substantial difference to the poor as experienced by supporting more than 150 ICT4D projects. It is important for all stakeholders to identify how ICT can most effectively be used to achieve lasting and sustainable improvements in people’s lives. Herewith the focus should be on enhancing products and services. This requires an open-minded approach, better understanding of the ways in which people use ICT resources, and more effective assessment of the impact of experiences which have been completed and are underway. Impact assessment should be made a collective, participatory and continuing learning process among the stakeholders and impact should be appraised by the beneficiaries and from their own perspective.
Submitted by Roxanna Samii on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 08:30
Could not agree more that we should move beyond pilots and start mainstreaming and scaling up ICT4D interventions. Love to hear people's view on a recent blogpost http://rsamii.blogspot.com/2010/09/enough-with-pilots-lets-get-serious-…
Submitted by Karl Jonas on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 13:47
The question is extremely general.
* Analyzing socio-economic impact of ICT is of value, I would be surprized if anyone would question this.
* and yes, also in rural areas :-)
If we are discussing development aid projects, and the _specific_ impact of an _individual_ project, THEN this discussion may make sense. Because here we find a trade-off between the original intention of the project, and the effort to evaluate its impact. And as we know, sometimes the evaluation (and preparation, monitoring, other overhead) of projects consumes more ressources than the project itself.
* Am I wrong?
* Was the idea to focus on this last point (impact in dev projects), or was it meant to be as general as it was put?
karl
Submitted by Peter Rave on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 14:20
Thanks for your question. Yes you are right, our discussion should focus on discussing specific impacts of development aid projects. However, we might come back to the general question when it comes to allocation of (research) ressources.
peter
Submitted by Michael Riggs on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 18:46
We should not assume that all are in agreement that there is value in the use of ICTs or analyzing their impact. Possibly this is one of the reasons behind the observation of Torbjörn Fredriksson from UNCTAD last week that many development organizations are dissolving or scaling back their ICT4D staff and activities.
As you note, there is value, but also it seems there is a question regarding the size of that value. Otherwise we would not question expenses related to valuation. As Peter notes, I agree this is an important point we should consider futher. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
-----------
On a side note, the question is somewhat general as you have noted. There is a reason for this from a facilitation standpoint, which we could discuss more elsewhere if you are interested. Just let me know.
-----------
Submitted by Roxanna Samii on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 08:34
Karl- At least in the muiltilateral world and I would hope in development world in general - ICT projects are not done in isolation but within the bigger context of development projects.... and mostly these are done in remote rural areas.... so yes, we are talking about impact of ICT-related activities within development projects and programmes.
I would be interested to hear the views of the private sector as to how they assess the impact of their investment.... I guess for them it is easier... the impact=if they increase their revenues, while for us the impact is if we have improved the livelihoods of the people we work for and with and those who we serve
Submitted by Premprakash Saboo on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 10:39
* Private sector has realised the need for Socially responsible approach in addressing Rual market needs.
* There is a shift from the term Commercial organizations to Socio-Economic enterprises in the context of Rural markets
* ROI expectations are consideraly lower (%) and longer (no. of years)
* Focus is on Volume/Scale (Low Margin-High Volume)
* Focus is on cross subsidization (What you spend to generate content for farmers can be further sold to many corporates by adding some more costs). While you charge farmers a very affordable price, you charge heavy to your Enterprise customers
* Win-Win Economics, Solid developmental impact can only lead to eventual Win-Win for all stakeholders (Consumers, Donors/Public Secotr/Private Sector/Others)
Submitted by Michael Riggs on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 15:41
Thank you for this Prem. Understanding and learning from the private sector's perspective is important for ICTs in development, especially when we consider the types of multi-stakeholder partnerships dicussed last week at the GTZ/BMZ conference in Berlin.
Submitted by Bulbul Ahmed ahmed on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 14:17
ICT is surely bearing a lot of significance for the development of rural economy by using ICT tools for getting informations updated. But it obviousely depends upon the source where the information supplied. If the source did not bears the quality to supply the dependable source then a ferocious happening may be happen due to its quality. Rural economy is mainly based upon the people who are staying at rural areas and mostly they are farmer or agriproduct business man. So the economy should not be regularised by the people who are not related to the rural sector. If so happenen, then they will do something for the rural people by their imagination. Thats why the info hub should have adequate knowledge about rural people psychology and existing supports.
Submitted by Canning S Shabong on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 14:50
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.
Submitted by Roxanna Samii on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 08:35
Love the analogy of the bus!!! Right on
Submitted by Canning S Shabong on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 14:35
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.
Submitted by Premprakash Saboo on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 15:09
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.
Submitted by Olaf Erz on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 17:57
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.
Submitted by Canning S Shabong on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 14:39
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.
Submitted by Jenny Aker on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 14:00
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.
Submitted by Rafaa Ghobrial on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 20:26
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 .
Submitted by Ueli Scheuermeier on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 21:25
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?
Submitted by Ueli Scheuermeier on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 21:41
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
Submitted by Premprakash Saboo on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 09:46
Completely agree. Further to add,
Development agency/Donors/Multilaterals can only provide the SPEED impetus by supporting proven models to SCALE faster.
The debate is meaningless and is aloof of what is already happening on ground. Pilots, Bigger Pilots, Commercial success etc.
Submitted by Michael Hampl on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 10:38
I disagree with that.
Although the overall topic of ICT4D isn't that fresh anymore there is still a huge demand for sorting out it's potentials. For me it seems very important to create an awareness of what is currently possible and mark out the future direction.
We have ICT all around us touching every part of daily life and sometimes don't realize the impact anymore. For us it can be very comfortable to assume that something is working simply because it's working.
What about someone in a rural area who is new to this topic? If you can clearly explain the benefits he would get out of it and listen to his suggestions for additional useful content the result can be even better.
It is true that the scene is fast evolving but if we don't have a lock at why it's happening and how wen might miss out a lot.
Submitted by Premprakash Saboo on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 12:15
I can speak on behalf of what have we done so far. - Started in 2006 with an Idea of SERVING FARMERS with Professional Information. We conducted study on over 1500 farmers trying to understand their information needs. Picked up 4 critical and universal information needs (Market prices, Weather Forecast, Crop Advisory, Agri and Rural News information). Created content around the same. Realized it is about serving PERSONALIZED content to each recepient and created technology platform around it. Completed successful pilots & launched commercially in 2007 -Today we have nearly 400k farmers who have subscribed to the service.Farmers have reported monetary benefit in the range of $100 to $8000. The service and its impact has been studied by various Government and Independent Universities/Agencies. In short we have created Universally applicable innvoation that can benefit farmers. For us it is about scaling.
Submitted by Roxanna Samii on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 08:38
So are you suggesting that it is obvious that ICTs are indeed having an impact on the lives of poor rural people and that instead of spending time in impact assessment studies we should just move on and scale up and mainstream successful interventions?
Submitted by Ueli Scheuermeier on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 21:35
Earlier this year we did a small little test run: A group of rural school dropouts in a Tanzanian town 100 km from the nearest tarmac road got access to computers and internet through a commercially operated "telecenter" we had helped launch. Their level of education is low, their English skills just barely sufficient for small talk. They had never even touched a computer. Let’s see what happens…..
Big surprise: Within a week these guys were each having their facebook account and exchanging on it among themselves (and beginning to fall victims to the typical scams on facebook) - and then they ask me to please come in and help them discuss an issue which was…. - now get this: Whether and how "globalization" (whatever they meant by that) enhances or diminishes their local culture.
Phew, what on Earth is going on? Among youth in a remote rural town like that? What effects, what impacts? Certainly a lot more than just on agriculture, that's for sure!
Ueli Scheuermeier
Submitted by VICTORIA OBASAJU on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 21:58
it is important to measure and analyze the socio-economic impact of ICT in rural areas to facilitate trend reviews and sustainability. However it will be be expensive to do so and training of Local government and community base resource person is important but as at now not yet implemented. ICT is gaining ground in rural areas at a fast rate with mobile phone. In Nigeria rural information technology centers have been created with ICT4D launched. However, a lot need to be done to facilitate ownership especially by the LGAs and rural communities. The theoretical framework and paper work are excellent but the practice difficult. RITC in rural ares aim at facilitating entry to remote areas. But lack M and E framework for impact assessment. Analysis of the socio - economic impact will facilitate measurement of the effectiveness, relevance and efficiency - this is lacking.
Victoria Taiwo Obasaju-Ayo, FAO-UN expert 2001-2020, Rome / Nigeria
Submitted by Canning S Shabong on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 04:28
“Effective adoption of ICT has a proven record in many parts of the world and a demonstrated potential to attain significant economic, social and environmental benefits at local, national and global levels(Gelb et al, 2008). This is been amply demonstrated by the countless of initiatives in India. But it is also significant that more research needs to be carried out to quantify the quantum and the depth of such initiatives on the socio economic fabric of rural societies.
ICT definitely can facilitate and stimulate trade in goods and services and play an important role in bringing transparency in the agricultural marketing system, where the players sometimes do not play by the rule. I think the bottom line is that ICT iniitatives has to be designed well, implemented well and promoted well in order to be of significance to rural communities.
Submitted by Premprakash Saboo on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 08:45
Value of analyzing the socio-economic impact of ICT in rural areas..
*Helps to understand what works and needs to be supported/promoted And what does not work and needs to be scrapped
*Direct & solid impact will lead to certainity of sustainability
*Quantification of MDG goals (Poverty reduction, Economic empowerment, Increase in Wealth) would be possible
Submitted by Premprakash Saboo on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 09:28
*Subscribing farmers reported increased earnings in the range of 5%-25% - ICRIER study
*Each farmers shares the information received with at least 5-7 fellow farmers (Neighbours/Friends/Relatives)
*Farmers reported increase in incomes in the range of US$100 to US$10000 in matter of few months of subscribing to service - Customer testimonials in the form or Audio, Videos, Letters
*68% of the farmers reported making profits by taking timely decisions based on information received - IMRB survey
*93% said they would recommend the service to their friends & relatives - IMRB survey
*Anecdotal -
- Message (SMS) from RML is message of God
- I have been able to marry of my daughter with the profits that i made because of RML
- With RML, now no one can cheat or exploit me
Submitted by Canning S Shabong on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 14:53
RML is indeed a very important service for ruralities, as mobile phones are now widely owned by farmers. According to my survey on ICT services of the department of agriculture, Meghalaya, it was found that 40% of farmers own mobile phones while none of the respondents ever access the Common Service Centre (CSC) or are aware of the services of the csc which were set up by the State IT Department.
However, the economics of RML at Rs. 850/- per annum with a subscriber base of 50,000 farmer does not work for small states where population are low, scattered and widely dispersed. Different models need to be worked out for small states.