Africa
Quick question: is it really okay to cite a Vodafone study that basically concludes that Africa needs more mobile penetration, more investment in Telecom, and more free market competition (meaning less government regulation)? I haven’t read the Vodafone study, and I don’t doubt that it’s well done, nor do I think the researchers fudged data or anything like that. But it does seem strange to me to rely as heavily as Kyem and LeMaire do on a study sponsored by a group that has a strong interest in the findings. I also noticed that every time the researchers cited the study it was in reference to something that would help Vodafone. I know the study is most likely huge, most likely the type of study that has to be funded by a large telecom, similar to pharmaceutical studies. But as far as I can remember, Kyem and LeMaire never even note the possible conflict here. Just a minor point, but an interesting one.
James and Versteeg’s study was highly interesting because of what it couldn’t tell us. Basically, the only close to definitive statistics researchers have on cell phones in Africa are subscription statistics. Subscription statistics tell us very little about how cell phones are used or how many people actually have access to cell phones. Castells et al. address that issue with their discussion of “mobile payphones” where people rent out mobile phones or let people use them for a fee. If ten people use one of these phones a day, that’s ten people who have access to one subscription. But even usage statistics don’t tell us much because those ten people might use a cell phone, but they don’t have real access to a mobile phone in the ways we are accustomed to. They cannot build businesses when they have extremely spotty access to a phone, nor can they really connect with others when they’re mobile. Rather, these mobile phones come to resemble older payphone booths. People must go to them to make a call. Clearly, it’s not just access that matters; rather, it’s the type of access.
Donner’s article was an interesting examination of mobile phone use in Rwanda. One of the more interesting findings was that, drawing from Katz and Aakhaus’ concept of universal Apparatgeist, Donner found that much of the ways people use mobile phones in Rwanda mirrors how they are used elsewhere. Some uses are obviously location and context dependent. For example, people who never had a fixed landline use mobile phones more for the connectivity than for the mobility. But at its core, people use mobile phones remarkably similarly around the world. Take “beeping” for example. Because people have little money to call or text, and because it costs very little if no one picks up at the other end, people call just for haptic communication. We don’t use beeping because we don’t have to, but whether it is through SMS or beeping, the core use is the same: when people adopt mobile phones they crave haptic connection in new ways.
One quick note. Donner talks about how mobile phone adoption can help small businesses and entrepreneurs. He gives example through short vignettes, and I don’t think any of us would disagree that mobile phones can help certain business practices. But is there something to be concerned about here? In his vignettes, he identifies individuals who were preseumably doing well enough in the first place to purchase mobile phones. After they make that purchase, their business will likely approve if they use them well. In a way, could this widen economic gaps? People who can’t afford the phone plans in the first place will become even less able to compete with those who can.
Finally, Castells et al. make the important point that ICTs are not a magic bullet for development. Being able to call to arrange a shipment is awesome, but it doesn’t make much difference if the infrastructure to move that shipment isn’t in place. There are other cultural concerns that will shape how successful ICT deployment can be. For example, I spent 10 days in the Amazon with a tribe. No running water, no indoor plumbing, and almost no electricity. The telecom company had, however, built one hut that had generator powered electricity, a computer, and a dial-up internet connection. It was really quite amazing. But it didn’t do anything to make life better for most of the villagers. I would guess that about 80% of the people there were illiterate. So yeah…what does an illiterate person do with the Internet? Probably nothing. Just a quick reminder that dropping ICTs into a place won’t solve everything.