Adeel, this is an intersting point here about the importance of understanding local values. Do you know of reported cases where ICTs have had a negative impact? These would have value as lessons learned, so that others can imporve their own work.

For anyone interested, RML refers to Reuters Market Light of Thomson Reuters Ltd. More information can be found here: https://customers.reuters.com/community/commodities/agriculture/focus_j… or by asking Prem!

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.

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. -----------

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.

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. ;-)

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.