Institutional Approach to ICTD – A Case for Public Ownership of ICTD Interventions

1. Institutional Approach to ICTD – A Case for Public Ownership of ICTD Interventions IT for Change

2. Based on a field study of 3 large scale ICTD initiatives in IndiaCorresponds to general experience in developing countries For Detailed studies see www.ITforChange.net IT for Change

3. Issues for financing and implementation of ICTD • SCALE - That ICTD initiatives reach large populations • QUALITY - That real outcomes in terms of traditional development gains are present • EQUITY - That gains are equitable, for the poor and the disadvantaged IT for Change

4. 7 important points that emerge • Quality versus scale • Appropriate technology – who and how • Interface agency for ICT-based services – the effective institutional form • Mainstreaming ICTD – the institutional tensions • Local needs - local ICTD solutions – issues of telecom policy and control versus local community needs • Value (against investment) analysis in ICTD projects • Ownership issues – deconstructing MSPs IT for Change

5. Point 1 - Scale versus Quality Traditionally, ICTD has been seen from two viewpoints • Country-wide indices of tele-density, access etc – lack qualitative outcomes and indices • Micro-initiatives with specific developmental outcomes – lack scale and reach to large numbers All the initiatives we studied were projects covering populations of a district (3.5 m) and being upscaled to whole states (30-75 m) Invariably meant a strong role of public institutions IT for Change

6. Point 2 -Appropriate technology – who and how • Technology corresponds to its socio-economic context – appropriate technology for ICTD cannot come from private R&D in the north • It requires public funded R&D in the South • ICTD technologies – Beyond telecom – includes, software, applications, content production/dissemination Public investment is needed in R&D, in conjunction with new ‘production models’ – open source, open content … IT for Change

7. Point 3 – Services Networks vs standalone telecentres Real outcomes require specific service deliveries, and these require institutional structures that combine online and offline elements into ‘Services Networks’ Services networks are community interface agencies, that include • A number of community access points • Common linkages to service providers, and thus providing a wide array of services • Common IT, and often connectivity, platforms • Common facilities like maintenance support, couriers… • A common brand name – Akshaya, eSeva … Local government support for developing such ICTD interface agency found necessary IT for Change

8. Point 4 - Mainstreaming ICTs – Great Institutional Challenges Two levels of institutional challenges for all development organizations – government, donors, NGOs • Internal – of innovation, and adoption of ICTs • External – of defining the relationship with ICTD interface agency Government is the biggest developmental agency and the main issue is of mainstreaming ICTs in its non-ICT departments, and defining their relationship with the ICT dept./community interface agency Governments serve as nodes for synchronizing investments into mainstreaming and specializing IT for Change

9. Point 5 - Local needs - local ICTD solutions – issues of telecom policy and control versus local community needs • Telecom still considered an inter-regional/ inter-state issue – for central governments to administer • If ICT is a development infrastructure, it should belong to where development belongs – at local and community levels • The conflict in telecom regulation between central and local levels, is the conflict between ICT’s role as a wider economy infrastructure, and as development infrastructure. Local governments want to own telecom, as they own roads, sewages, public transport… IT for Change

10. Point 6 -Value (against investment) analysis in ICTD projects ICTD delivers 3 kinds of values • Values that are intangible – empowerment through I & C rights, community media • Values that are unpredictable – “you don’t know what ICTs use may fetch you” • Values that are pursued with a deliberate plan- in areas of health, education, livelihood, governance… It is in this last variety that institutional roles are most important: but most benefits envisaged by employing ICTs are not immediately available. Most ICTD investment today is social investment into developing and incubating processes, institutions…. clear revenue models may not be easy Role of leadership, evangelizing becomes more important that in traditional development areas Investments and evangelizing by local governments are invariably needed IT for Change

11. Point 7 - Ownership of ICTD initiatives – De-constructing MSPs While public/community role is central, private enterprise often helps in bringing in part of the investments, and through innovation and enterprise MSP terminology is often used to escape scrutiny of ‘real’ ownership, in terms of whose interests are principally served The issue is where does the key control in an MSP lie Only such partnerships deliver ICTD gains (scale, quality, equity) where the key control lies with a community/public body IT for Change

12. Community vs Public ownership Community ownership of all development processes is the ultimate goal However, ownership of ICTD initiatives by local governments as an intermediary step may be required because • Resources, social capital…… at community level are often insufficient • ICTD generally means composite delivery of a great range of development services – which requires institutional approach both at community interface level, and at levels of specific sectors – governance, health, education – which requires greater resource intensity, management expertise, networking effect…. Local government ownership of ICTD initiatives with increasing community partnership through self-government structures is the ideal way to go IT for Change