Subject: [gaia] Fwd: Feedback on Does the Internet deserve everybody?

From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 19:22:43 +0100

this mail got bounced.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Barbro Fransson <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc:
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 20:14:07 +0200
Subject: VB: Feedback on Does the Internet deserve everybody?

Dr. Yehia Elkhatib et al.

I got a reminder from Professor M Udén, LTU about your work on “Does the
Internet deserve everybody?” I have read it from my professional
perspective (I´m originally from economic field but now doing policy
science research on citizens participation in broadband development in
rural areas).

I understand that you question (in the introduction passage) what economist
learn about growth (see for instance Solow, 1956). Solow´s theories awarded
him the Nobel Prize for showing how to trace sources of growth (effects
from *technological change, capital and labour)*. According to those
theories growth in GDP per capita comes from two sources, *capital
accumulation* and *technological progress*. Those theories have been the
base for design of growth policy (and not the least the massive investment
in universities we have experienced). In essence it is still what is taught
at the Economic departments at many Universities about how to create “long
term growth.”

Statistics today show that overall growth between 1950 and 1973 was due to
technical progress. A slow-down between 1973 and 2000 came about due to
slow down in technical progress, oil crises etc. Then increase in
GDP/capita in the US since 1995 on-wards seems to come from faster capital
accumulation of capital related to ICT. Note that capital in this sense is
broadband, ICT devices etc. and not capital in the bank.

Now to my observation. When development countries are offered aid (via the
Swedish development Agency (SIDA)) they have a “strong” say in what to
invest the funds in. As far as I know they have ICT development (broadband
etc.) and technical education / training on top of their wish list. So when
SIDA fund and set up projects “bottom-up”, large amounts land on ICT or
training / education.  I.e. the beneficiaries and Swedish government are
strongly influenced by Solow in their investment criteria.

What I wonder is, do you propose that SIDA should take a “meritocratic”
view and suggest other directions of funds to something that is not
demanded by the beneficiaries? And to deviate from Solow (and his
follower)? I understand that you don’t really mean that, only that more
thoughts should go into how to “allocate” resources between:

1.     Investment – combination of “role-out of infrastructure” and
“take-up” (capacities influenced by training, education, research etc.).

2.     Consider “Cui bono” (who benefits) of the action. When I did a
course in policy science in the 70s we were recommended to consider Cui
Bono. Today I struggle how to interpret that recommendation. Should we
propose not to give 90% of population in rural Sweden broadband just
because 10% may never get it? Should “equal communication facilities” be
provided on village, regional, national or global level? In that case, why
do we not consider the equality issues when we build roads as not all
citizens are able to use the road and some citizens might not use the road
to go to church on Sunday but to…etc.

Your work is really interesting. I´m sorry I don’t have the time for more
conclusive feedback.

Best regards,

Barbro Fransson
------------------------------

*Från:* gaia <[email-masked]> för El Khatib, Yehia (elkhatib) <
[email-masked]>
*Skickat:* den 29 maj 2015 14:35
*Till:* gaia
*Ämne:* [gaia] Does the Internet deserve everybody?

Hello all,

We have put together a short paper on the ethicality of Internet
initiatives for developing regions. It will be presented at the workshop on
Ethics in Networked Systems Research in London later in the summer. We
wanted to share it with you and invite any feedback.

Abstract: There has been a long standing tradition amongst developed
nations of influencing, both directly and indirectly, the activities of
developing economies. Behind this is one of a range of aims:
building/improving living standards, bettering the social status of
recipient communities, etc. In some cases, this has resulted in prosperous
relations, yet often this has been seen as the exploitation of a power
position or a veneer for other activities (e.g. to tap into new emerging
markets). In this paper, we explore whether initiatives to improve Internet
connectivity in developing regions are always ethical. We draw a list of
issues that would aid in formulating Internet initiatives that are ethical,
effective, and sustainable.

The PDF could be accessed here:
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/~elkhatib/Docs/2015.08_dide.pdf

Best regards,

Yehia

-- 

Dr. Yehia Elkhatib

School of Computing & Communications

Lancaster University, LA1 4WA, UK

y.elkhatib <then add> lancaster.ac.uk

http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/~elkhatib

-- 
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d