Information and communication technology for Development in Poverty Reduction was the topic of discussion on both the ICTD and Poverty Networks in May 2003, following similar queries from MM. Ram Babu Dhakal (Nepalese delegate to the UNDP Exec. Board) and Alejandro Grinspun (Rio Poverty Centre). Below is an abridged version of the consolidated reply to both queries provided by Raul Zambrano,  ICTD Policy Advisor, BDP.

The role of ICTs in poverty reduction has been widely discussed since the late 1990s not only in academic fora but also at the global level in the G-8 DOT Force, the UN ICT task force and more recently the various WSIS regional meetings and prepcoms. It is easy to identify two camps: those who argue that ICT cannot have any impact on poverty alleviation given its apparent high entry costs vis-a-vis other priorities (people need food and jobs not PCs or cell phones), and the others, that see it as a tool that will undoubtedly help poor people by its own dynamics and character (ICT as a panacea). There is both a policy and programmatic gap here and a need to build bridges between the two camps. Most of the responses to the network addressed this issue.

There are many examples of countries in which ICT has had an impact on poverty, and UNV has allocated expertise and volunteers to support these efforts. At any rate, most of the examples are implemented on a micro scale and evidence of macro examples is a bit more difficult to find. One could think of the Grameen phone example in Bangladesh that is now reaching over 300,000 people. But still more work needs to be done on the micro-macro connections (i.e., scaling up micro initiatives and replication in other countries) at both the programme and policy levels.

Specific recommendations were suggested to address this issue. Kamal Rijal suggested a series of programmatic recommendations localised to the Nepalese context such as access to market prices and relevant information for improved decision-making, technology options, and improve family links. Pierre Dandjinou focused more on the policy side and suggested an improved policy environment to attract FDI in infrastructure, efficient and equitable universal service policies and provisions, and new financial mechanisms to promote cost effective access and connectivity. Edo Stork suggested a focus on the CCA and UNDAF processed to identify ICT and poverty links in Nepal and on that basis provided a series of programme recommendations for possible UNDP support.

It is important to remember that there is a considerable body of literature on the subject as pointed out by both Ramla Khalidi-Beyhum and Yuri Misnikov. This does not mean that the issues are de facto resolved, rather it means that any additional contributions to the topic should build on the existing body of knowledge and address at the same time the upstream/downstream aspects of the issues.

Finally, we should pay attention to how poverty is perceived and defined vis-a-vis ICT. If we all agree that “poverty is the sum of all hungers” then ICT can play a definite role as a tool to provide information. Furthermore, links to other seemingly unrelated areas such as energy provision services, disaster prevention and management, and education and learning become more self-evident as suggested by several of the respondents.

In sum, the bridges between ICT and poverty are being built by ICTD practitioners and policy makers to the point that there is now ample evidence of the potential impact of ICT in specific socio-economic situations. But there is no silver bullet nor a one size fits all solution.

For additional information contact Pierre Dandjinou, SURF–WA ICTD specialist, dandjinou.pierre@undp.org