Blog

Technology magnifies intent and capacity

“Kids in the developing world need the newest technology…”[1]

“Can the cellphone help end global poverty?”[2]

Amidst such buzz around technology’s role in global poverty and human rights, Kentaro Toyama provided a poignant presentation on the myths of technology in international development to Global Washington members on Friday, May 6, 2011. Following the presentation was a lively discussion between Toyama and the audience, comprised primarily of Global Washington members with theoretical and field expertise in this area.

A visiting scholar at UC Berkeley and former co-founder of Microsoft Research India, where he designed electronic technology for international development, Toyama intimately understands technology’s role in supporting poverty alleviation work. Throughout the presentation, he stressed that “technology magnifies intent and capacity” and cautions against looking to technology, in and of itself, as a solution to global poverty.

Toyama’s presentation focused on countering seven myths regarding technology in international development.

Myth #1: Technology undoes the rich getting richer.

Toyama began with a question to the audience that went something like, “you and a poor Ugandan rural farmer are each given an e-mail account and asked to raise as much money for the charity of your choice. Who would be able to raise more money?” The room indicated that they would be able to raise more funds due to various reasons, from the relative affluence of their friends to their computer literacy skills to their education in articulating written concepts.  And thus began Toyama’s presentation, highlighting that even with identical technology, other capacities and systems have to be addressed to gain equality.

Myth #2: Hardware and software are a one-time cost

Toyama reminded Global Washington members that the average American mid-size corporation spends approximately $7,000 per year on their IT budget. Thus, hardware and software are NOT a one-time cost. In contrast, there is a need to continue to invest in technology.

Myth #3: Needs translate to business models

Using the fact that Google does not make a profit from YouTube and Google Maps – services that we might consider quite useful in our lives – Toyama illustrated that people don’t always pay for needs.

Myth #4: Automated is cheaper and better

Toyama highlights problems with full automation, particularly in the developing world: cost, literacy, lack of technological familiarity and errors within technology. 

Myth #5: Information is the bottleneck

In the developed world, and even more so in the developing world, time, effort, basic needs and a host of other priorities get in the way of obtaining all of the information that’s available. For example, just because a person has access to the Internet, and thus educational resources, does not mean that person can and will obtain a full education.

Myth #6: Technology’s impact is only positive

Because “technology magnifies positive and negative intent,” technology may have positive as well as negative effects. For example, technology can easily further the negative effects of gender inequality, abuse and child prostitution.

Myth #7: Technology X will save the world

Contrary to popular belief at the time of their invention, radio, TV, landline telephones and PCs have yet to save the world. In fact, in places where we would most desire to see technology make positive change, we don’t see this change because other key systems are missing: physical, social, financial and digital infrastructure.

So, how do we use technology successfully in global development work?

Toyama offered recommendations for successful use of technology, which include:

• Apply technology to existing social trends or institutions, which are already making an impact.
• Focus on nurturing human “intent and capacity.”
• The human component to any technology is critical.

Global Washington members dug deeper asking about and commenting on their work in community readiness for technology, successes and failures in technology, public-private partnership models and the role of education.

Global Washington’s mission is to convene, advocate, and strengthen the international development sector in Washington State, with an emphasis on the sectors of Global Health, Global Education, Environmental Sustainability, and Poverty Alleviation.  In this role, Global Washington brings together its members and the community to discuss critical global topics. Consider two upcoming events focused on technology and global development: Mobiles in Development on June 16 and the Dark Side of ICCT on July 14.

by Bridgette Greenhaw

What do the Zambian economy and a volcano eruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo have in common?

What do the Zambian economy and a volcano eruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo have in common?

Apparently nothing. However at Global Washington there is a regular combination of cultures and information sharing taking place where people, creativity, and cross-cutting ideas can come together and make the most unlikely connections. On Thursday, April, 28, 2011, Global Washington hosted Mr. Alfred Chioza is the Deputy Ambassador of Zambia in Washington D.C and Maisha Soul, a musical group from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Zambian government’s efforts and results in creating attractive economic investments frameworks, as well as the country’s successes in economic development were mentioned by the speaker.  The audience was invited to invest in agriculture, water resources, raw materials extractions, mining, tourism, health and education. Many participants at the event mentioned that they visited Zambia before and were already working in these areas or are planning to in the future.

Maisha Soul is a band from the Democratic Republic of whose name means “soul of life”. They sang a number of songs in a mix of Swahili, English, and French. The message of the music written and performed by the four young brothers is a call for peace, promotion of brotherhood, equality, human rights, and freedom. The group was formed in 2002 after the volcanic eruption in Goma, when many people from Congo, including the performers, were in refugee camps. By that time they became a voice of hope in the middle of despair their country has struggled with for decades. The group was sponsored by HEALAfrica, a member organization of Global Washington.

Global Washington’s mission to convene, advocate, and strengthen the international development sector here in the state, with an emphasis on the sectors of Global Health, Global Education, Environmental Sustainability, and Poverty Alleviation.  As numerous international visitors come to Seattle to meet with businesses, policy makers, and educational institutions, Global Washington supports its members in organizing events like this to make the visitors accessible to the community of NGO’s, foundations, and individuals dedicated to all aspects of global development.

Liuba Ceban

Liuba.ceban@gmail.com

Can Seattle Save The World? Event Shows Stellar Seattleite Interest

Over 750 people packed into Town Hall on Apr. 26^th to hear journalist Tom Paulson grill four experts in global development.  The goal was to discuss everything from “can charity create change” to “what does global health really mean” as said by Paulson.  Panellists included Christopher Elias, the president and CEO of PATH; William Foege, a Senior medical advisor for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Wendy Johnson, Director for Health Alliance International; and Joseph Whinney, founder and CEO of Theo Chocolate.

As Paulson pointed out, Seattle is not going to save the world singlehandedly, but as he said “it is a hub of a region that has become do-gooder central.”  In addition to this Seattle has become known for global health and is a city that provides opportunity for collaboration within this sector.  Many Global Washington members were present at the event, which was fitting since the topics discussed revolved around re-examining global development.

The presence of Theo Chocolate in a discussion primarily about global health is evidence that there are powerful intersections both between the different sectors of global development and also between development work and the business world. As Paulson and the panellists emphasized during the discussion, you cannot discuss health without discussing poverty as the two are integrally connected.  These points of intersection are central to Global Washington’s work as we bring together diverse players in development to facilitate greater innovation and collaboration. We hope that discussions like this one continue shed light on how we can effectively utilize the enthusiasm and resources in Washington to create sustainable global change.

Some of the responses to the questions were particularly relevant to Global Washington members are seen below.

Paulson: So what is Global Health?

“The world is divided into things that are broken and things that are fixed; global health is fixing things that are broken,” said Foege.  The conversation later broadened to include the other panellists. “There has been a shift in perspective from ‘global health is someone else’s problem’, to ‘this is a problem that we all deal with’” said Elias.  He said that this change came from three things: first, that trade and travel shrank the world; second, that there was a need to address inequalities; and third, that we have moved into understanding systems.

“Technology almost always plays a role, but almost never in isolation” said Elias.  He expanded on this statement saying that to have an effect on global health, we need technology with behaviour change.  Wendy Johnson, in a truly academic approach, brought up the theory behind these two techniques, explaining the concept of the “magic bullet” and “social justice.” “We like to ignore the tension” between these two methods she said, giving the example of malaria.  While Johnson was more critical of our progress in moving towards the social justice approach (she was not convinced that it had happened yet), she did seem optimistic that Seattle organizations were in support of this transformation.  At one point, she even quoted Elias in a former lecture where he said “you can’t perform a c-section with a cell phone,” thereby showing the agreement across the industry that behaviour change is as important as technology.  Though there was not much controversy between the panellists over the questions Paulson posed, the discussion did strike a sensitive chord in the hearts of the audience as it turned to our relationship with poverty.

Paulson: Why are we so comfortable with poverty?

“We have to tolerate poverty because we all benefit from it,” responded Foege.   He explained that everything in our lives comes at a cheaper cost as a direct result of poverty.  Johnson said that we must remember our bias in development discussions as coming from a position of privilege.  She brought up the point that Seattle is one of the whitest cities in the country as evidence of this privilege.  “Until we find the right leaders, poverty will continue to be a problem because we are all so invested in it,” summed up Foege.

Paulson: Isn’t the cheapest option always going to win out?

Not necessarily. According to Whinney, “the idea of social responsibility is an integrated approach,” he said.  He gave the example of the BBC documentary that came out ten years ago depicting the abysmal conditions for those working on coco farms. Initially this got large chocolate companies on board with paying farmers more he explained, but: “the needle hasn’t moved.” The needle he was referring to is a measurement of the change of salary that people are working in.  “The idea of CSR has to move the needle and there must be transparency,” he said.

Later, Paulson brought up difficulty in raising awareness while also addressing the problems that a development organization may be having in achieving their goals.  Elias gave the example of the Global Fund, which had some corruption issues with their TB fund a few years ago.  While this corruption became news, “the story that did not get told was that the Global Fund’s increased accountability measures was what discovered the issue.  To me this was a story of success,” Elias said.

Paulson: Why are so many young people getting involved in development and what would you say to them?

Simply put by Whinney answer to the first question was: “we all want to do something with our lives.” Elias explained that there are more jobs now then there were when he came through the system but that “the demand outstrips the supply.” He said that what is missing for an applicant now is that first experience.  People need time to go abroad, volunteer and work with programs directly, but that “students are carrying too much debt” to do so.  In regards to paid opportunities, Elias said that there is a difficulty in finding funds for paid internships.” He also mentioned that PATH gets hundreds of inquiries about these positions, which are not available, which made the future for graduates look slightly bleak.

Later, questions expanded to include the audience, whom asked several questions about our right to work on global health when our own healthcare is lacking.  Johnson gave a great quote by Lila Watson, which said: “if you have come to help me you are wasting your time.  But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine then let us work together.” An audience that would question their own perspective, in a city that shows such collaboration between sectors is proof that this is the approach we are hoping to follow.