DevPolitics

Is There A Development Analog for Web 2.0? (aka, In Which I Reblog)

The World Bank Private Sector Development Blog has an interesting take on what the development field can learn from the internet. And I quote:

Development 2.0 - the challenge of planning for serendipity

From McKinsey's article on "Six ways to make Web 2.0 work" that set the social media world on fire recently:

Our research shows the applications that drive the most value through participatory technologies often aren’t those that management expects. Efforts go awry when organizations try to dictate their preferred uses of the technologies...rather than observing what works and then scaling it up." (Italics are mine.)

The article goes on to quote a company that introduced a social networking tool for new hires: "The intended use never caught on, but people in the company’s recruiting staff began using the tools to share recruiting tips and pass along information about specific candidates and their qualifications. The company, however, has yet to scale up this successful, albeit unintended, use."

McKinsey focused on enterprise collaboration. However, there's a parallel to be drawn here with the applications of Web 2.0 to development. One of the reasons why Development 2.0 is so hard for many traditional development players to embrace is that it challenges the linear thinking of logical frameworks and the (sadly) still deeply engrained assumption that a project needs to be a success almost by default if it is to get funding from donors. Web 2.0 is the realm of uninteded uses and consequences, and success might be defined by the end users in ways that are substantially different from what was originally planned in project proposals. (This TED Talk on the unintended uses of Twitter by one of its co-founders makes the point quite forcefully).

Development 2.0 is about embracing user-driven innovation, non-linear planning and scaling up instances of successful technology adoption even if they go beyond the original "output/outcome" framework. Take for instance the "Big Board" project, aimed at facilitating village-to-village mobile communication in rural areas in Africa (hat tip: Chris Kreutz):

In the trial the two most popular types of user-generated content were completely unexpected.Young people used the board to upload T-shirt designs which a local printer then downloaded and manufactured, and local choirs used it to swap recordings of their gospel choir performances.

The lesson about the serendipity of technology adoption is hardly new. What is different with Web 2.0, though, is that, on the one hand, the cost of failure can be significantly reduced and, on the other, scaling up can be dramatically accelerated through network effects. Is the development world ready for this shift?

Source: http://tinyurl.com/a9lkzk

From McKinsey's article on "Six ways to make Web 2.0 work" that set the social media world on fire recently:

Our research shows the applications that drive the most value through participatory technologies often aren’t those that management expects. Efforts go awry when organizations try to dictate their preferred uses of the technologies...rather than observing what works and then scaling it up." (Italics are mine.)

The article goes on to quote a company that introduced a social networking tool for new hires: "The intended use never caught on, but people in the company’s recruiting staff began using the tools to share recruiting tips and pass along information about specific candidates and their qualifications. The company, however, has yet to scale up this successful, albeit unintended, use."

McKinsey focused on enterprise collaboration. However, there's a parallel to be drawn here with the applications of Web 2.0 to development. One of the reasons why Development 2.0 is so hard for many traditional development players to embrace is that it challenges the linear thinking of logical frameworks and the (sadly) still deeply engrained assumption that a project needs to be a success almost by default if it is to get funding from donors. Web 2.0 is the realm of uninteded uses and consequences, and success might be defined by the end users in ways that are substantially different from what was originally planned in project proposals. (This TED Talk on the unintended uses of Twitter by one of its co-founders makes the point quite forcefully).

Development 2.0 is about embracing user-driven innovation, non-linear planning and scaling up instances of successful technology adoption even if they go beyond the original "output/outcome" framework. Take for instance the "Big Board" project, aimed at facilitating village-to-village mobile communication in rural areas in Africa (hat tip: Chris Kreutz):

In the trial the two most popular types of user-generated content were completely unexpected.Young people used the board to upload T-shirt designs which a local printer then downloaded and manufactured, and local choirs used it to swap recordings of their gospel choir performances.

The lesson about the serendipity of technology adoption is hardly new. What is different with Web 2.0, though, is that, on the one hand, the cost of failure can be significantly reduced and, on the other, scaling up can be dramatically accelerated through network effects. Is the development world ready for this shift?

Source: http://tinyurl.com/a9lkzk

To the Rescue...

One of the most appealing aspects of this course so far is an opportunity for self-reflection and the consideration of what is at stake for our role in the international development field.  I’ve read interesting accounts throughout this blog on personal obligations to help people in the developing world and the moral ethic to give , give, give.  Though commendable and mostly full of passion, I would dig a little deeper and pose yet another question to my colleagues, help people do what?  Sorry for the cynicism, but just as the word ‘development’ lacks clarity so do our intentions—myself included.   Trust me I understand what is meant by the obligation to make the “less fortunate” lives ‘better’.  However, ‘better’ is a rather relative term.  Maybe we mean improve livelihoods to establish standards for growth and development within global populations, since “standards” are what we consider rights in the so called North and what we wave as an exhibit of our livelihood as…“better”.  There’s plenty of room for debate.

Well, here’s my declaration of the ultimate goal or why the obligation to international ‘development’.  My obligation is to take you, my colleagues, and myself out of work.  Yes, I said it.  Shouldn’t that really be the goal of ‘development’ anyway?  I apologize to jeopardize your future careers, but I think we’ve debated enough on the disparate impact of the international development industry without considering what the picture would look like without us.   Maybe we don’t always need to have the insatiable “obligation” to rescue the world.  If you want to help the developing world, help by transferring your skills as managers so that they can perform the same task to develop their communities and raise their livelihoods to their standards and not yours.  My colleagues, it’s time to wake the sleeping giant in the room.  I encourage you to ‘develop’ that.     

U.S. Religion’s Ethical Interest in International Development

In the interest of promoting peace, disarmament, favorable economic policy and, above all, democracy, an important ethical consideration is the extent to which an outsider’s intentions (UN or sovereign state) would influence development in the international arena.

Sovereignty is still a contentious issue, as it is generally ‘new’ for many developing nations.  The turnover of power from the nineteenth and 20^th centuries from imperial states to newly emancipated colonies left a vaccum of epic proportions.  Many nations, such those as in Eastern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa fought bitterly for international recognition as sovereign states, only to find their internal politics equally unsettled.  Rival ethnic groups and minority religions add fuel to the fire for political parties historically placed in favor and control by the previous colonial masters.  They now have the task of running a nation divided by class, political agency and national identities. 

An example of how one nation’s politics can affect another polity or region is the current religious climate of the U.S.  The United States has long had political and economic interest in the promotion of democracy and favorable economic markets globally.  A recent article in Foreign Affairs alights on the subject of religion in the U.S. and its increasing role in foreign policy.  American Protestantism is the largest group faith in America, factioning into three distinct groups; Fundamentalists, Liberal Christians, and Evangelicals.  The degree to which these factions get involved in politics of the nations reflects their levels of optimism about “the possibilities for a stable, peaceful and enlightened international order, and the importance each places for the difference between believers and non-believers, (Mead, 27).”  An interesting parallel to this type of ideology occurs when it is played out in U.S. foreign policy.  It is a formidable force in the trends of the national agenda, whether it be striking criticisms of Darwinian biology taught at the expense of an equally considered creation theory, or foreign aid to civil war starved areas of the Sudan. The religious aspect of American foreign policy indicates a growing moral concern/ethical concern.  At the same time, religious lobbyists still maintain their slant. 

Although Evangelicals have a history of supporting humintarian and human rights issues globally, they have a decidedly vested interest built into their philosophy of action.  They want the freedom to spread their message and moral way of life. Fundamentalists have the most upheaval against current U.S. foreign policy towards non-Christian nations.  They see no point in attempting to come to agreements on world issues with those their doctrine specifically indicates are not to inherit the “kingdom of heaven”.  They are “deeply pessimistic about the prospects for world order and see and unbridgeable divide between believers and nonbelievers.”  This kind of religious outlook directly affects what issues reach the surface and influence the priorities of politicians and their constituents.  Evangelicals are fierce allies of the missions to protect Israeli interests, obviously taking a side in the Middle East conflicts.  They might be interested in specific instances of injustice and human suffering, but prefer a more faith-based grassroots approach rather than institution- building.  Foreign policy developed from these perspectives are bound to color the nation’s efforts on a global scale.  I find myself wondering if this is a resurfacing modern version of Manifest Destiny or religious colonialism. When is the line crossed?  Can the Fundamentalist Islamic agenda be equated, with their strict social codes and similar emotional fervor becoming ever more popular, to the point of raising influential political parties into power? What are the ethics of a religios agenda influencing policy dealing with "non-believers"?

Motivation/Intention vs. Consequences/Results:

Sitting at Miami International airport waiting to board a flight to Port-au-Prince, Haiti I see white missionary workers preparing to do some good. For the past twenty-six years I’ve seen them come and go and haven’t viewed any evidence of a significant difference in the quality of life of most Haitians that are living in extreme poverty. Which makes me wonder “Why are you here?” This is not because I believe they do not mean well, but rather I wonder what can they possibly hope to accomplish on a two-week missionary trip. A two-week trip alone cannot make a huge impact on the problems that Haitians face without some understanding of Haiti’s history and way of life. This knowledge may help missionaries to know what actually needs to get done for improvement. In my opinion, nothing is really going to change until Haitians themselves unite, as they did in 1804, not violently but unite as a people and demand their human rights. Haitians must do it for any true change to occur. This is not to say that assistance will not be needed along the way but they must be in the driver seat. Haitians are the ones that truly understand themselves, what has been done to them historically and where they want to go in the future. It is these sentiments that allowed me to relate to Ivan Illich’s speech on opposing American “do-gooders” in Latin America. Yes, I understand the missionaries wanting to come and help is motivated by good intentions, but what are the true results of their temporary visit (because let’s be honest, unless they’re Paul Farmer, they wouldn’t actually want to live in Haiti)? A few “results” of missionary’s good intentions are no significant change happens; Haitians get a small glimpse of what they don’t have and most likely will never be able to obtain; and a reliance on handouts rather then actually working towards a solution to their problems. There are instances, however, where American “do-gooders” actually do some good. One example is the health program that Dr. Paul Farmer set up in Cange. I cannot say I completely understand his motives to aid the Haitians, but his efforts have good results that can be carried on even in his absence. Therefore, I cannot conclude that motivation should be the major factor for development, but rather the end result is what truly matters for developing countries.

Immigration rights rally

There is already a blog started if any one wants to participate in dialogue on immigration rights. My purpose now is to relate a message I got in regards to an immigrants' right rally and to awaken your interests to participate. The rally is on Monday April 10.

Objective: to stop

" the un-constitutional, anti-immigrant House Resolution HR4437,

all attacks on immigrants,

the criminalization of immigrant communities"

To demand:

" a path toward citizenship, not a temporary guest worker program,

family reunification measures,

protection of worker's rights"

The group will meet at the picket line in front of Bobst library at 1 p.m. on Monday, April 10 to march down broadway to City Hall rally. The rally at city hall will be from 3p.m. to 7p.m. I know we have class during that time but we can stay at least until 5p.m.--it's up to you. But, I think it's important to be there at least for some time. Also, wear a white T-shirt.

Social reform with out equitable institutions?

I believe that all human beings have the right to basic human needs. Yet, satisfying basic human needs through public provision and foreign aid without increasing the capital capacity of the poor to equally participate in economic development and the political decision-making power to equitably benefit from the gains of economic development is merely putting a band aid without addressing the fundamental problem of poverty.

Provision of social services without addressing these fundamental causes of poverty is a mechanism through which elites (within a country and globally) control those who are marginalized and still maintaine their own economic and political power. Elites within a country may provide those who are marginalized with just sufficient incentives in order to prevent them from rioting against the very system that is the fundamental cause of their poverty for example through public schools and hospitals of low quality. Globally, increased threat due to religious war, nuclear competition, natural resources extraction...urges rich countries to assist poor countries just enough to get support to meet their political and economic interests and thereby, keep the unjust system.

As such, I think that the main focus should be on providing equal playing field for competition and building a system that will enable all individuals to equitably accrue the advantages of economic growth. We should work towards democratic governance at multilateral organizations--governance that equally includes all countries, transparency of  budgeting process, ensuring loans to the poor to enable them to participate in economic activities if we really want to "eradicate poverty." I am not arguing that there shouldn't be public provision of basic needs, I am saying that there is a more fundamental problem that we all should be focusing on.

On poverty…

I found Varshney piece on the relationship between democracy and poverty very provocative. It made me reflect; basically it systematized and put in a logical order what I used to think about poverty. I guess I have personal relationship with poverty: I hate it. I completely disagree with famous Russian adage “Poverty is not a vice.” I believe poverty IS a vice and, what’s more important, it is the origin of more vices. Poverty is not money shortage; it is a personality destructive and humiliating condition. So why democracies have, at most, moderate poverty reduction rate? The poor has the strongest voice in democratic poor countries. The policies created are policies created by the poor for the poor. I used to argue about US President 2004 with a friend of mine who is outrageously smart with IQ 170. Having listened to my arguments, he said, “Yes, Bush is stupid, he fails miserably in Iraq, but he represents the rich people of America. And since I want to be in that crowd too, I vote for him” (he is in that crowd already.) My counterargument was that I was not rich yet and then he said, “Change starts from within. Start thinking as a rich person and you will become rich.” And that’s the key phrase: as weird as it is, poor people think like poor people, create policies for poor people and nothing changes. A circle is closed. Poverty goes beyond low income; it strips a person of elementary rights, for education, for development. And money is not the issue here, people thinking is.

P.S. Sorry for anti-Bush comment.

Blog Leader: Team Posting 1

After reading "Mixed US Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Toward Chaos" (Front Page, NY Times 1/29/06), I couldn’t help but think of "To Hell with Good Intentions." At times, I think that the world would benefit from the US government taking Illich’s advice. How many times will we make the same mistakes? I guess it will continue until our foreign policy makers realize that we are part of a global community, and that our decisions need to reflect the broad interests of those at home and abroad, instead of the interests of a select power wielding few.

Although development issues interest me, the politics of development seem overarching. I find myself leaning towards Illich’s advice, “If you have any sense of responsibility at all, stay with your riots here at home. Work for the coming elections: you will know what you are dong, why you are doing it, and how to communicate with those whom you speak.” From the Katrina failure, to the prisoner abuse scandal, to the number of people without access to healthcare, to high child poverty rates, the moral authority of the United States is diminishing and we are on the road to severe backlash against our policy of “exporting democracy.”

It is time for the United States to do some self-reflection. Before we get involved with state-building abroad, there are some serious issues we need to confront at home. Although a clearly defined foreign policy with consistent objectives is a worthy goal, domestic problems need to be addressed.

Mexico's Poverty Policy: Pay Mom to Keep the Kids in School

The 9/17/05 Economist reports that Mexico offers poor families cash payments of $50-70 a month to keep their children in school and take them for regular health check-ups.  5m families now get such payments with the aim of breaking the cycle of poverty by giving their children a better chance to escape it.  Between 2000 and 2002, the poverty rate fell during a recession.  Studies suggest that children in the beneficiary families are less likely to drop out of school and be stunted by poor nourishment.  The money is normally paid to women (who reportedly spend it better than men.)  Payments are high enough to make a difference but low enough to not distort labour markets by removing the incentive to work.  In the past their has been a political incentive to make such payments, but these payments have continued under governments of different political complexion.