ngonzi & kosheek - modelling for the diffusion of icts in developing countries_research paper
TRANSCRIPT
1
Modelling for the Diffusion of ICTs in the Economies of Africa’s Developing Countries
By: Tibuhinda Ngozi and Kosheek Sewchurran
University of Cape Town
Abstract
This paper addresses the shortcomings of the perspectives driving applied ICTs initiatives for
development in developing countries of Africa. My claim in this paper is that the efforts
underway in applied ICTs for development in Africa as a measure to address digital divide on
the continent, have no capacity to immerse the technology in the economic functions and
processes of Africa’s developing countries. A content analysis conducted on the stock of
ICT4D projects’ driving concerns and values reinforce the claim. I argue in this paper that,
the efforts are developing and sustaining a technologically trapped and persistently foreign
dependent island of countries on the African continent, as evidenced by the visible lack of
Africa’s innovative contribution in the production of ICTs for instance, or innovative
application of ICTs in her economies. To get out of this scenario, it is suggested in this paper
that the developing countries in Africa need to develop a focus on the productivity impacts of
ICTs; by enhancing the emergence of innovation complementaries, complementary
investments, and sectoral linkages in the diffusion processes of ICTs. For that to succeed, I
suggest for the conception of ICTs in the capacity of general purpose technologies (GPTs).
Keywords: Digital divide, Complementary investments, Innovation complementaries,
Sectoral linkages, General purpose technologies, Social innovation machinery.
1. Introduction
A weak position of firms in the creation of the necessary complementary investments,
innovation complementaries, and inter-sectoral linkages in developing countries in Africa is
a major setback in the diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICTs - here
in after used interchangeably with ‘technology’) in those countries. This scenario affects the
diffusion process of technology in the economic functions of the continent. The situation
results in a skewed appropriation of technology in favour of its informational dissemination
impacts. On the other hand, technology assimilation for the promotion of factor productivity
growth and contribution to output remains very low and narrow in Africa’s economies. This
paper acknowledges the efforts being made in applied ICTs, where ‘applied ICTs’ refers to
the ICT based innovations and initiatives of the world information society and ICT4D,
aiming at pushing for the uptake of technology in the technologically deprived societies with
the aim of enhancing their livelihoods. This acknowledgement however, is not without
criticism in the focus of this paper.
It is claimed in this paper that, although pragmatic efforts have focused on inducing and
promoting the adoption of ICTs for their purportedly impacts related to development, the
approaches have ignored very important aspects of diffusing ICTs in the socio-economic
processes of the respective societies. The initiatives seem to have extensively concentrated on
the people centred outcomes such as access and use of ICTs (WSIS, 2003; ITU, 2005, 2009)
without paying attention to developing root innovativeness in the host communities to
2
support the emergence of innovations locally. This situation is not without a background.
This paper identifies two main historical factors to it as expressed in the subsequent sections
after the definitions of the operationalized concepts.
The rest of the paper is presented in nine sections. The next section presents the conception of
the operationalized concepts, followed by Section 3 on the historical background to the
limited uptake of ICTs in the economic processes of underdeveloped countries in Africa.
Section 4 describes the perspectives for the diffusion of ICTs in the economic processes,
while Section 5 is the statement of the problem. Sections 6 and 7 present the design of the
study and discussion of findings respectively. Section 8 dwells on the modelling activity for
the diffusion of ICTs, while the contributions to knowledge made and the conclusions are
presented in Sections 9 and 10 respectively.
2. Operationalized Concepts
Digital Divide Digital divide is an evolving concept, and there have been a number of pertinent definitions.
OECD (2001) defined ‘digital divide’ as being referring to the gap between individuals,
households, businesses and geographical areas at different socio-economic levels with regard
both, to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and
to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities. ITU (2007) asserts that digital
divide is to be seen as a ‘discrepancy’ gap between more and less developed communities.
Tongia and Subrahamanian (2006) conceptualize digital divide in the context of the under-
served people who lack physical access to connectivity, and social and political avenues for
ICT participation. Steyn (2011) subdivides ‘digital divide’ into categories of: (1) operational
divide, (2) cultural divide, and (3) political divide. The first is said to be about the availability
of ICT and access to ICT systems; the second is about some groups lacking either
technological or social access to dominant social networks; and the third is about exclusion of
some groups or individuals.
In our observations, ‘digital divide’ should be stretched to include an ‘innovation divide’ as
well. The inclusion of this category of divide in the gap should enhance the pragmatic
approaches beyond just targeting opening-up opportunities for access and use of ICTs as per
the OECD (2001), or empowering people to discover opportunities for social cohesion
(Gomez & Pather, 2010).
Innovation We project an understanding of 'innovation' in this study as being about the generation and
adoption of new concepts. As such, it involves creativity, learning, and the objects of creation
and learning. The understanding also takes the view that in societies there can be organized
systems for innovation, through which efforts are directed towards desired outcomes. This is
an extension on other similar definitions such as 'innovation is a ‘learning process’ by which
“new knowledge is produced or existing elements of knowledge are combined in new ways”
(Edquist & Hommen (1999, p.65); innovation is the ‘creation of value from
knowledge’(Gault, 2010); innovation is “the adoption of an internally generated or
purchased device, system, policy, program, process, product or service, that is new to the
adopting organization” (Meyer, 2000, p.329). Rogers (2003) express innovation as an idea,
practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption; while
Mulgan (2006) defines an innovation as the outcome of deliberate efforts towards developing
and shaping an idea, a product, a process, or a method; and refers to innovations as tools.
3
Information and Communications Technology for Development (ICT4D)
There is a range of perspectives of the term ICT4D (Information and Communications
Technology for Development) in literature. Some sources refer to ICT4D as the use of ICTs
to solve developmental problems, or as the opportunities that exist for ICTs as an agent of
development (Sutinen & Tedre, 2010). Steyn (2011) views ICT4D as being about
“overcoming [the] digital divide operationally” (p.20) so as to enable the deprived
communities to appropriate ICTs and access ICT systems. Tongia and Subrahamanian (2006)
see ICT4D as solving the problem of development through innovations in computers,
connectivity, content and human capacity.Tongia and Subrahamanian (2006) describe ICT4D
as a dynamic process with goals that shift over time, and see ICT4D as “inherently dependent
on the goals of the stakeholders and their ability to participate in defining the right
development problems to be solved” (p.202).
The definitions just tabled have a connotation of ICT4D being about the use of ICTs by
practitioners to confront digital deprivation, or solving developmental problems in the
socially and economically disadvantaged places (Klein, 2009; Steyn, 2011; Sutinen & Tedre,
2010). While we maintain this worldview when we use the term in this paper, we suggest that
ICT4D should not be seen as a weapon in the hands of practitioners, but a context in which
actors are both the practitioners, and host individuals/communities innovatively defining their
ICT related concerns and values for their own life and economic achievements.
3. Historical factors limiting the Uptake of ICTs in Economic processes of
underdeveloped economies in Africa
Two factors involved in limiting the uptake, or assimilation of ICTs in the underdeveloped
economies are: (1) the perspectives of the community of practitioners in applied ICTs, and
(2) the limited scope of the approaches against digital divide in applied ICTs, as
conceptualized in the existing understanding(s) of ICT4D.
Perspectives of the community of practitioners
The first factor is reflected in the deliverables of the ICT forums on the world information
society, such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)’s organized world
summit on information society (WSIS). These include the declarations on addressing digital
divide and the famous millennium development goals (MDGs); and their respective action
lines (ITU, 2005). The perspectives relate peoples’ underdevelopment related problems such
as poor health, poor education, low income (GDP) etc. to lack of access to, and low level of
use of ICTs to facilitate information sharing (WSIS, 2003; ITU, 2005). Such perspectives in
turn have led to short term impacts focussed approaches in interventions, which are not
rooted in local host economies.
Pertinent to the identified factor, the desire of the developers, practitioners and sponsor
stakeholders who happen to form a force, externalized to the contexts of relevance in applied
ICTs has been to witness the outcomes of their ingenuity (in design) and justification of
financial outlays respectively. This has also reinforced the short term impacts focus and
commitments in applied ICTs. In reality, foreign-agency-driven initiatives for addressing
‘digital divide’, lack provisions for transition to contextually rooted innovations to sustain the
initiatives, which means that social innovations based on the perspectives of the host
communities are not cultivated. Apparently, the host communities of ICT4D initiatives rarely
develop the necessary ‘agency’ and capacity for generating complementary innovations in
support of mainstream ICTs.
4
Limited scope in applied ICTs
The conceptual contributions of the technology elite community on digital divide and ICT4D
is seen in this paper to have impacted on the conception of the initiatives for addressing
livelihood and poverty issues with technology. The initiatives for the deployment of
technology in Africa’s underdeveloped economies have dominantly focussed on
operationalizing the consumption of ICTs for their prescribed intrinsic values, specifically
information processing and dissemination (ITU, 2005, 2009; WSIS, 2003) for social
empowerment and cohesion (Gomez & Pather, 2010). This has resulted in the aspects of
enhancing technology ‘acceptance’, ‘use’, and ‘access’ and targeting human development
indices in terms of access points established for instance, or numbers visiting internet services
outlet points etc. being the main agenda of ICT4D stakeholders.
Although some human development indices are perceived to be realizable if target
communities ‘accept’ and ‘use’ the ICT interventions (Alampay, 2006; Gigler, 2004; Smith,
Spence, & Rashid, 2011), the targeting of such indices face a danger of ending up leading to
concentrating on short-term incidences only. For socio-economic transformational ends, such
incidences need to be theoretically and practically enriched for long-term economic
performance, as called for by other sources such as Morales-Gómez and Melesse (1998). In
the perspectives of this paper, human development and economic performance are inter-
related. Consequently, even short term human development indices need provisions to
translate into long-term economic development and social transformation. To get that
achieved, quality labour and improved productivity are the values that applied ICTs should
seek to reinforce.
4. Different Perspectives for the Diffusion of ICTs in the Economic Processes of
Underdeveloped Countries
A review of literature on the emergence and pervasiveness of ICTs around the world suggest
that ICTs have characteristics of general purpose technologies (GPTs). GPTs can be
conceptualized as technologies whose impacts are not confined to any economic or social
sector, and thus can be realized in many forms and settings (Bresnahan & Trajtenberg, 1995;
Cette, Mairesse & Kocoglu, 2005; Hamel, 2010; Helpman & Trajtenberg, 1996; Jalava &
Pohjola, 2007; Jovanovic & Rousseau, 2005; Rohman, 2012). GPTs are technologies that
tend to improve factor productivity across sectors, influence productivity growth, and
contribute to national product directly (Gretton et al., 2002; Gretton, Gali, & Parham, 2004;
Jalava & Pohjola, 2007). ICTs enhance factor productivity by complementing other capital
inputs, penetrating production processes refered to as ‘capital deepening’, and influencing
improvement in labour quality (Cette, Mairesse & Kocoglu, 2005; Getton et al., 2002).
GPTs have their characteristics which promote their diffusion and use in economies as
follows:
- They are propagated through innovation complementaries
- They are supported by complementary investments
- They extend beyond the sectors in which they emerge to lead to inter-sectoral
linkages.
GPTs are acknowledged as radical innovations that in many cases play the role of influencing
revolutionary changes that transform household lives and the way firms conduct businesses
(Dwivedi, Mustafee & Williams, 2009; Jovanovic & Rousseau, 2005).
5
Other descriptions regard such technologies as ‘major technologies in historic eras’ that have
been able to create sets of opportunities and constraints for innovative activities in other
major innovation lines (Castellacci, 2008). GPTs are known to be ‘enabling technologies’,
‘pervasive’, and capable of opening up new opportunities (Bresnahan & Trajtenberg, 1995;
David & Wright, 1999; Hamel, 2010; Helpman & Trajtenberg, 1996). GPTs are pervasive in
the sense that, after being produced in one sector of an economy, they are usually used as
inputs by other sectors, referred to as ‘the user sectors’, developing sectoral linkages in so
doing. The user sectors benefit from the GPTs trough two important inputs. One is that they
innovatively build upon the main GPTs, developing what is known as innovation
complementaries. The other is that they make the necessary investment in infrastructure and
human resources to support the GPT based innovations. These are then referred to as
complementary investments.
The studies conducted by Ngwenyama, Bollou, Andoh-Baidoo, & Morawczynski (2006) and
Indjikian & Siegel (2005) among others, reveal a positive correlation between investment in
ICT and economic growth for developed economies. However, contradicting findings exist
for similar studies conducted in under-developed economies in Africa (Ngwenyama et al.
2006; Steyn & Kirlidog, 2013).
In the views of this paper, applied ICT initiatives will be successful in ICTizing deprived
economies, thereafter generating respective positive correlations, if the uptake or diffusion
process of technology is complemented with capacity to generate contextual complementary
innovations. Those will then function to immerse technology in the economic processes,
coupled with the generation of the necessary supportive infrastructural investments for the
innovations. Such capacity should evolve from within the host communities’ bodies. This
paper refers to that capacity to innovate as ‘social innovation (SI)’ in contrast to where the
term is used as a reference to technological innovations conceived to address needs of social
reach in the communities of deprivation (see Section 2).
Much of the available literature on GPT is contextualized in the world of business
organizations, with reference to firms and industries as the main carriers of the respective
‘innovations’ and ‘investments’. The firms provide the necessary investments, and set
avenues for innovations. In so doing, the firms have driven the emergence and growth of ICT
innovations (Bresnahan & Trajtenberg, 1995; Helpman & Trajtenberg, 1996). In turn, ICTs
have overwhelmingly supported economic growth.
The immediate question coming to our minds is, can the firms, or the industry base
altogether, in underdeveloped economies of Africa be relied upon to generate the necessary
complementaries?
This question is tackled by taking a brief exploration of the stock markets, as an
approximation of the status of the industrial base in Africa.
The Status of an Industry Base in Africa’s Underdeveloped countries
Unfortunately, the industry in Africa’s underdeveloped countries is narrow and shallow
(Gibbon, 2001; Page, 2011, 2012). A clear evidence is observable in the comparison of
market capitalization data worldwide (Tables 1&2).
6
Table 1 Market Capitalization of Stock Markets Country-wise Globally
Country 2010 2011 2012
Country 2010 2011 2012
Africa
France 1,926.5 1,568.7 1,823.3
Botswana 4.1 4.1 4.6
Germany 1,429.7 1,184.5 1,486.3
Cote
d'Ivoire 7.1 6.3 7.8
United
Kingdom 3,107.0 2,903.2 3,019.5
Egypt,
Rep. 82.5 48.7 58.0
Netherlands 661.2 594.7 651.0
Ghana 3.5 3.1 3.5
Norway 250.9 219.2 252.9
Kenya 14.5 10.2 14.8
Poland 190.2 138.2 177.7
Malawi 1.4 1.4 0.8 Sweden 581.2 470.1 560.5
Morocco 69.2 60.1 52.6
America
Namibia 1.2 1.2 1.3
Brazil 1,545.6 1,229.0 1,229.8
Nigeria 50.9 39.3 56.4
Canada 2,160.2 1,906.6 2,016.1
South
Africa 635.3 523.0 612.3
Chile 341.6 270.3 313.3
Tanzania 1.3 1.5 1.8
Costa Rica 1.4 1.4 2.0
Uganda 1.8 7.7 7.3
USA 17,139.0 15,640.7 18,668.3
Zambia 2.8 4.0 3.0
Zimbabwe 11.5 10.9 11.8
Asia
Europe
Bangladesh 15.7 23.5 17.5
Belgium 269.3 229.9
300.1
China 4,762.8 3,389.1 3,697.4
Denmark 231.7 179.5 224.9 Hong Kong 1,079.6 889.6 1,108.1
Finland 118.2 143.1 158.7
India 1,615.9 1,015.4 1,263.3
Russia 1,004.5 796.4 874.7
Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/CM.MKT.LCAP.CD
Table 2 Listings on Stock Exchanges in Africa (2014)
Economy Location Listings Link
Côte d'Ivoire Abidjan 39 BRVM
Algeria Algiers 5 SGBV
Botswana Gaborone 44 BSE
Cameroon Douala 2 DSX
Egypt Cairo 833 EGX
Ghana Accra 34 GSE
Kenya Nairobi 64 NSE
Libya Tripoli 7 LSM
Malawi Blantyre 14 MSE
Mauritius Port Louis 88 SEM
Morocco Casablanca 81
Casa
SE
Namibia Windhoek 32 NSX
Nigeria Lagos 223 ASCE
Rwanda Kigali 5 NSE
Seychelles Victoria 4 RSE
7
South Africa Johannesburg 402 JSE
Sudan Khartoum 54 KSE
Swaziland Mbabane 10 SSX
Tanzania
Dar es
Salaam 17 DSE
Tunisia Tunis 56 BVMT
Uganda Kampala 17 USE
Zambia Lusaka 16 LuSE
Zimbabwe Harare 81 ZSE
Source: www.world-stock-exchanges.net/africa.html
The averages of market capitalization of corporate stocks listed on country bourses
worldwide (until 2012 as per the available data, Table 1) are used to approximate for the
capital investment depths across world economies. For Africa, with the exception of South
Africa (at USD 612.3 billion), market capitalization is as low as USD 0.8 billion (Malawi),
with the highest at USD 58.0 billion (Egypt) for the last year in the series (2012). By
comparison in Europe, the lowest value is USD 158.7 billion (Finland) against highest of
USD 3,019.5 billion (UK). The number of stock market listed companies in Africa range
between 2 companies (Cameroon) and 88 (Mauritius), with the exceptions of Egypt (833
companies), Nigeria (223 companies) and South Africa (402). The latter three countries
display exceptionally high bourse listings compared with the rest on the continent.
Identified in this analysis is a confirmation of a weak industry base for producing, absorbing,
and reproducing ICT innovations, and supporting innovation processes with resources in
Africa. It can be implied as well, that digitally deprived economies have an inherent
characteristic of the digital divide itself - the technological base in many sectors of economies
is very low. It is a feature of these economies to be based on light (i.e. low level of intensity
and sophistication) innovations.
Obviously, developing a framework for the realization of GPT potentials in such a scenario is
significantly challenging.
Having identified the limiting factors for the diffusion of ICTs to take effect in the economic
processes of underdeveloped countries, we turn to the exploration of practice for the inherent
features and potentials for turning around the trend. We begin by stating the problem,
followed by empirical observations.
5. Statement of the Problem
The main concern of the presented study was that the perspectives at the foundation of the
deployment of ICTs in developing countries undermine the diffusion process of technology
that would lead to its pertinent long-term economic benefits in developing countries. Not only
that, but they also affect the ways in which stakeholders for the global information society
engage themselves in influencing the diffusion process. That said, there is a need for adequate
theoretical foundations to appropriately guide the ICT deployment and application initiatives
for effective social development in Africa’s developing countries. In the other words,
theoretical contributions in the discipline of information systems are needed to explain the
relationships between long-term impacts of ICT and societies, and the frameworks for
practice to realize the impacts.
8
This paper reports the outcome of the exploration for the conceptions surrounding applied
ICT processes in theory and practice, for the objective of gaining an understanding on how
the improved approaches for applied ICT can be achieved. The paper looks into the ways by
which local communities and their governments in Africa’s underdeveloped countries can
play a role in cultivating the enhancement of ICT to promote productivity, like it has
happened in the places that have advanced to the levels of commanding technologies.
6. Design/Methodology/approach
The paper is based on an empirical qualitative study. The textual data were mined from the
ITU-WSIS Stocktaking and the IDRS databases. The databases function as a repository for
the ICT4D based projects, which comprise the main initiatives made by the International
organizational stakeholders including sponsors, in the body of the United Nations to address
digital divide worldwide. Content analysis techniques were applied in the analysis of data to
elicit constructs, concerns and values that in turn describe the perspectives of the community
of stakeholders as the drivers of applied ICTs.
7. Observations, Findings and Discussion
I. The leading force in the initiation and implementation of applied ICT interventions for
development in Africa’s underdeveloped economies is external to the contexts of application.
Figure 1 provides a clear evidence for the observation; where only 10% of the investigated
projects were endogenously initiated with the remaining 90% being initiated and
implemented by exogenous agencies. Consequently, the voices of State powers as agents of
citizens do not feature significantly. The situation is the same in the aspects of policy,
financial resources allocation, and the determination of the mode the interventions should
take. There is no adequate presence of local drive in the choice and initiation of ICT projects.
The body of international development community of practice, working with international
donor funding as favoured by the ITU/IDRC is the key player in the efforts to curb ‘digital
divide’, realize MDGs, and stimulate development.
Figure 1 Affiliation of Project's Lead Entities
II. The distribution of the initiatives is highly skewed (Figure 2), North and West Africa
hosting about two thirds of all the 346 analysed projects (particularly in Egypt which host 96
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
External 90% Local 10%
9
(39%). This can, to some extent, explain why the region is favourably advanced in the use of
digital technology in comparison to the region south of the Sahara.
Figure 2 Projects Distribution by Region on the Continent of Africa
III. The local based participation in the formulation of own solutions for own problems is
not featuring. Observed is a ‘clinical approach’ which happens to be short term and short
lived. However, an example from the idea carrying the project on ‘Collaboration for Health
Systems Analysis and Innovation (IDRC project no.106788, 2012) which contend that
“critical social problems need to be addressed in a more comprehensive way … for
sustainable results …. rather than a ….. clinical approach” negates that kind of approach
to social problems.
IV. The dominant focus of the initiatives for addressing digital divide and knowledge
poverty in Africa is on providing access and connectivity. In turn, the theme drives the
deployment of ‘telecentres’ as the solution to lack of ‘access’ and ‘connectivity’.
At the macro level, the practices for the deployment of ICTs fall in four main classes:
i. Technical innovations which have included investment in telecentres, e-governance
systems; web portals for governments, youth and women; and investment in digital
communication infrastructure.
ii. Providing public ‘access’ to ICTs and ‘connectivity’ to ‘knowledge’ via internet as
a solution to digital marginalization.
iii. Promoting the use of ICTs via support for deployment in small businesses and social
portals. Assumption of digital technology uptake as having a decisive role in
promoting economic growth.
iv. A focus on the transformation approach for community changes through ‘technology
transfer’ to the deprived communities. This goes with an implicit assumption that the
poor people are probably poor because they are ‘digitally excluded’
V. There were instances of government role playing to support the growth of the private
sector, specifically small and medium enterprises; while other indigenous activities such as
agriculture and fisheries are not addressed.
VI. The development of ICT sector itself in developing countries before it can support
development is not a theme in practice. The tendency at the moment, though not explicitly
0
50
100
150
NA WA EA SA
150
57 37
102
Number of Projects
Number of Projects
10
stated, is an implicit dependence on foreign activists such as the ITU, IDRC, WB, and other
international organizations.
There is no enough evidence in practice to show the presence of significant institutional role
playing in underdeveloped countries for the promotion of national innovation systems for
endogenous motivation of development and use of ICTs.
VII. Creating capacity to exploit ICT is a challenging area not adequately dealt with in
applied ICT for development efforts. This is not just about ‘training users’ as widely spelt in
such efforts. The issue is about creating linkages between economies, technology and
understanding the related services. The excerpt below is a clear evidence for the challenge.
“As the presence and influence of information and communication technologies
(ICTs) continues to widen and deepen, so too does its impact on economic
development. However, much work needs to be done before the linkages between
economic development and ICTs can be understood in a systematic and
meaningful manner. …..….to expand the scope of conventional investigation
beyond the telecommunications industry to include other vertically integrated
components of the ICT sector such as manufacturing and services” (IDRC
Project Number 1051227 ‘Statistical Compilation of the ICT Sector and Policy
Analysis’)
VIII. Evidently missing in practice are:
i. Support for pervasiveness of ICT in capacity of GPT: The design end is not
charged to work with economic bases. ‘Development’ is equated to ‘use of ICTs’,
while ICTs are not connected to the indigenous people’s economic activities.
ii. Support for the development of innovation complementaries: This is about
operational interventions that have worked to stimulate, or catalyse innovations in the
aspects of a society or economy leading to the diffusion of an ICT based intervention.
For instance, promoting social creativity, promoting imaginativeness, creating gaps
for ICTs in manufacturing or business etc. as a prerequisite to inventing things which
utilize the products of ICT interventions, such as ICT aided processes.
iii. Local driven concerns and values: There is a complete lack of locally driven,
inward looking SI process in the whole scenario of deploying ICTs in Africa’s
underdeveloped countries for bridging the digital divide, curbing knowledge poverty
and establishing knowledge economy.
The practice part in ICT interventions in Africa is focussed on providing solutions to
problems exogenously defined, and not building local capacity for generating
solutions to locally identified and defined problems in the local understanding.
iv. Support for the development of infrastructural inputs for the mainstream
ICT-GPT innovation: Having provisions for removing bottlenecks for the
application of mainstream innovation. For instance: Developing skills for the
establishment of ICT based institutions (R&D), building up a resource capacity for
innovations etc.
v. Opportunities for inter-sectoral uptakes and linkages: Having applicability in
multiple sectors which are inter-linked such as farm inputs manufacturing and
agriculture. Investment in technology (exemplified in the insistence on digital
11
communication infrastructure) lacks corresponding efforts in synergies such as
information systems for health, e-governance and transparency, education etc.
The findings of the study are utilized in the next section to conceptualize the modelling
activity for the proposed focussed process of ICT diffusion in underdeveloped countries.
8 Modelling for GPT
Following-up on the findings is a consideration of the framework to address the diffusion of
ICTs in the core economic processes of underdeveloped countries. The framework is aiming
at filling the evidenced lack of a strong platform of firms which could supposedly function as
the main carrier of ICTs diffusion, and the lack of innovation base in African countries. The
framework is also expected to fill the revealed diffusion gap of ICTs that practice in ICT4D
has so far failed to address.
To tackle the challenge of frameworking for GPT potentials, we take perspectives from social
theories. Literature on social theory informs that a social unit, such as a society, can respond
to internally or externally induced changes for short-term, or long-term adaptations
(Schoderbek, Schoderbek, & Kefalas, 1990). According to Schoderbek and colleagues, short-
term changes are only related to contemporary functionings. They are not structural, meaning
that they do not result in the definitive structural long term modifications of the entities
concerned. The long-term response of a unit body may result in a body “structurally
modifying itself, or structurally modifying its environment” (Schoderbek et al., 1990, p.54).
It is a conviction of this paper that, among others, Sen’s capabilities approach is an
appropriate model by which constructs for generating communities’ and individuals’ long-
term transformative capacity to innovate can be advanced. This paper’s advanced construct in
relation to ICTs diffusion is a ‘social innovation capacity’. Starting at the grassroots, an
individual’s recognised concerns and values compel her to make choices on how to deal with
them. The choice range available to her however, is limited by what the person is capable of
doing (Sen, 1999), determined by how a person is naturally gifted and the set of intangible
resources (such as knowledge, skills, freedom of movement, access to services etc.) and
tangible resources (such as capital and infrastructure) available to her (Sen, 1990, 1999). The
exploitation of the gifts and resources is in turn enhanced by what Sen (1999) labels as
‘social arrangements’. Thus, social arrangements work to institute the freedom a person or
community has in freely choosing the combination of resources to work with for the purpose
of achieving expected end results, or pre-set developmental goals.
Applied to ICT4D, and the diffusion of ICTs in their capacity of GPTs, locally organised
efforts are essential to enhance the presence of social arrangement frameworks in
underdeveloped economies. The arrangements should in turn boost the emergence of a SI
capacity, capable of generating innovation complementaries and complementary investments
for the deepening of ICTs in respective economies, hence improved factor productivity and
economic development.
In an attempt to focus ICTs to output and productivity versus derived economic growth and
social transformation in the Africa’s underdeveloped countries, we have chosen in this study
to embark on the inherent characteristics of GPTs for long-term economic and social
transformation impacts. The lenses of social development theories, specifically the Capability
Approach (CA), are used to frame SI as a social capability to mediate ICTs for long term
social change. This is done by positioning SI in the spectrum of ICT diffusion processes, via
inferring the innovation complementarities and complementary inputs.
12
The effects of framing for SI are twofold. First, SI is framed to generate a medium that
functions as a carrier for investment and innovation complementaries in order to supplement
for the weak industrial base as presented before. Recall that a strong industry base functions
to produce, absorb, and reproduce ICT innovations on the one hand, and to support
innovation processes with resources on the other. Second is that SI is framed to specify the
‘agency’ of the state which is proposed to be the key role player in driving for organized and
sponsored innovations, and enhancing for ambient social arrangements for innovation to
emerge. This is further clarified in the next subsection.
Innovativeness and Technology Diffusion in the Mediation of State Agency
Innovation is a dimension of technology that is highly influential in instantiating technology
in the realm of development processes. In the absence of strong firms, potentially impactful
major innovations have to be planned for, and coordinated to exploit their advancements and
cumulativeness in sectors for their short, medium, and long-term socio-economic
performances.
Innovation is a collective social endeavour, a collaborative process in which the economic
units such as sectors depend on each other for the expertise, goods, and services in a wide
social constituency of workforce, suppliers, consumers, institutions, training bodies etc.
Figure 3 below is a framework for the comprehension of the modelling dimensions.
13
Figure 3 Modelling Framework
4 - GPT
DIFFUSION
-Capital
deepening
-Labour quality
1-State organized collective vision
of the society
2- Action Areas
Determine economic
characteristics
-Economic structure
-Value chains
-Core competences
-Processes
Capabilities
-Individuals
-Social arrangements
-Institutions
Technology
-Innovations
-Resources
-Infrastructure
-Sector networks
etc
Activity
of
agency
3 - Short-term
aspects and impacts
Action and inaction on
technology:
-adaptive innovations
-adaptive applications
-modifications
-repair
-vocational training, -etc.
6 - Long-term
Transformational
Impacts
ECONOMIC
TRANSFORMATION
SOCIAL
TRANSFORMATION
5 - CHANGE IN PRODUCTION PROCESSES
IMPROVED VALUE CHAINS
ECONOMIC GROWTH
14
In Figure 3 are six main dimensions labelled 1-6. The six dimensions altogether function on a
SI platform. In the figure SI is placed as ‘level 0’, to mean that all other elements of the
framework are an outcome of its functionings. The dimensions are described as follows:
Dimension 1 depicts the role of the state to organize visions on technology, development and
social transformation, in its representation of the society.
Dimension 2 informs on the areas of attention for the state’s action. For instance, the state
should be aware of the economic conditions, the available capabilities, and the technology
environment so that it can act to align them with the requirements for the deep and extended
diffusion of ICTs.
Dimension 3 is an activity area. It is a projection of the individual and institutions agency role
playing in innovating and propagating innovations. It is a demonstration area of the
innovation capabilities. The realization of innovation impacts is achieved in the short term,
while other impacts bear implications for the long-term outcomes.
Dimension 4 is a depiction of the outcome of the processes and activity that take place in
Dimension 3. As people engage technology in different aspects, capital deepening develops,
quality of labour gets modified, and technology sinks to the cores of economic operations
whose impacts are realised in Dimension 5.
Dimension 5 projects the macro level manifestations of the impacts of Dimension 4. They are
an outcome of technology enhanced factor productivity. Improved production processes and
improved economic value chains lead to economic growth. In turn, economic growth is a
driver for long term sustainable social and economic transformation of Dimension 6.
The framework under construction should be a guiding tool of practice in applied ICTs.
Accordingly, the next stage is to underpin the framework in operations.
Framework operationalization
To operationalize the framework developed in the preceding Sub-Section, at the centre is the
requirement for the state to have base information on the techno-diffusion scenario for it to
effectively organize for high impact technology diffusion. The state must have an idea on the
status of the diffusion critical identifiers or variables (technology deepening, sector linkages
etc. Figure 4 ). This is an input that should function to identify the technological concerns,
and development of content and values for the state organized diffusion processes.
For practical purposes, a tool devised for the prior techno-diffusion scenario assessment for
identifying the starting point or the relevant ‘concerns’ beforehand. The tool is presented in
Figure 4 as a ‘spider-web diagram’ (SWD) for multi-dimensional perspectives in the process
of assessment.
15
Figure 4 A Spider-web tool in the drafting of organized ICT diffusion process
The spider-web tool works by, firstly specifying certain ‘critical identifiers’ informed criteria.
For instance in the figure, the ICT innovation, social arrangements, innovative
complementaries, and complementary inputs emanate from the stages one and two critical
identifiers. The rest are informed by stage three. The scores (here arbitrary) are obtainable
from the technical surveys, using Likert scale tools. The Core ICT indicators manual
(Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, 2010) is useful at this stage. It is used to get
the specific variables for each criterion. The observations against the criteria are supposed to
generate action areas for intervention, such as where to do what.
For instance, the score on ICT innovation is an indication on the rate of emergence of ICT
related innovations. An innovating society will have a favourable score on this. Then on
social arrangements, the tool is to test for the presence of the necessary social arrangements
(policies, financial resources guarantees, market protection etc.) for innovations to emerge
and thrive and so on.
The tool also helps as a pointer to the areas of strength and weakness in the efforts for social
development. The areas that attract low scores on the specified variables should be areas of
incompetence and vice versa. The advantage of the tool is that it provides a visual aid for
viewing the status of critical identifiers in a single plane by use of an easy to understand
polygon.
9. Contributions
This study has made two important contributions to the understanding of diffusion of
technology and addressing of digital divide in developing countries. (1) The paper has
exposed the weak position of firms in the creation of the necessary complementary
investments, innovation complementaries, and inter-sectoral linkages in the diffusion process
of ICT in Africa’s underdeveloped countries. This results in a low and narrow appropriation
level of ICT, which does not promote factor productivity growth and ICT’s contribution to
output. (2) The paper has exposed the ineffectiveness of the applied ICTs of ICT4D
initiatives in taking technology and innovation to the cores of underdeveloped economies’
0
1
2
3
4
5Scale
ICT innovation
Social arrangements
Innovativecomplementaries
Complementaryinputs
Technologydeepening
Factor productivity
Sectoral linkages
16
economic processes. And (3) that to change the above scenario, the underdeveloped countries
have to take initiatives to promote local innovation capabilities for the strategic diffusion of
ICT. To this the paper has proposed for the intervention of the state agency role in driving
ICT diffusion in Africa, and also to effect the long-term economic growth and socio-
economic transformation.
10. Conclusions
At this point it is summarised that ICTs have their greatest economic impacts in their contexts
of GPTs; that GPTs depend on specific features for their effective diffusion in economies;
that a dual existence of ICT producer and user industries and a network of sectoral linkages in
them is an important catalyst for the diffusion of GPTs. It is also learnt that the presence of
situated agency in applied ICTs should be important to facilitate the identification of
concerns, and the development of content and values for ICT innovations in a situated sense
making world view.
In the modelling exercise, we focused on deliberating for the emergence of the GPT
characteristic features without dependence on the absent duality of producer and user firms
identified elsewhere. We proposed for the social arrangements that are capable of sponsoring
the emergence of local innovativeness and capital deepening for greater factor productivity in
underdeveloped countries.
References
Alampay, E. (2006). Beyond access to ICTs: Measuring capabilities in the information
society. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 2(3).
Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/printarticle.php?id=196&layout=html
Bresnahan, T. F., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies ‘Engines of
growth’? Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83–108. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/030440769401598
T
Cette, G., Mairesse, J., & Kocoglu, Y. (2005). ICT diffusion and potential output growth.
Economics Letters, 87(2), 231–234. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/S01651765050002
24
David, P. A., & Wright, G. (1999). General Purpose Technologies and Surges in
Productivity: Historical Reflections on the Future of the ICT Revolution. Retrieved
from http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/12488/
Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., Mustafee, N., & Williams, M. D. (2009). Profiling a decade of
Information Systems Frontiers’ research. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(1), 87–
102. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/article/10.1007/s10796-008-9147-7
Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: Theory and policy for the demand
side. Technology in Society, 21, 63–79.
Gretton, P., Gali, J., & Parham, D. (2002). Uptake and impacts of ICT in the Australian
economy: evidence from aggregate, sectoral and firm levels. In OECD Workshop on
ICT and Business Performance, Productivity Commission, Canberra, December (p.
192). Canberra, Paris: EOCD.
17
Gretton, P., Gali, J., & Parham, D. (2004). The effects of ICTs and complementary
innovations on Australian productivity growth. The Economic Impact of ICT:
Measurement, Evidence and Implications, 105–30. Retrieved from
http://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4rLVAgAAQBAJ&oi
Gault, F. (2010). Innovation strategies for a global economy: Development, implementation,
measurement and management. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited and the (IDRC).
Gibbon, P. (2001). Upgrading primary production: A global commodity chain approach.
World Development, 29(2), 345–363. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X00000930
Giddens, A. (2009). The Constitution of Society. UK: Polity Press.
Gigler, B. (2004). Including the Excluded-Can ICTs Empower Poor Communities? Towards
an alternative evaluation framework based on the capability approach. In The 4th
International Conference on the Capability Approach (pp. 5–7). Pavia, Italy.
Gomez, R., & Pather, S. (2010). ICT Evaluation: Are we asking the right questions? In
Proceedings of the 4th International Development Informatics Association
Conference (Vol. 4). Cape Town: IDIA.
Hamel, J. (2010a). ICT4D and the Human Development and Capabilities Approach: The
Potentials of Information and Communication Technology (Research Paper No.
2010/37) (pp. 1–78). Munich: UNDP. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/26408/1/MPRA_paper_26408.pdf
Helpman, E., & Trajtenberg, M. (1996). Diffusion of general purpose technologies. National
bureau of economic research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w5773
Indjikian, R., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). The impact of investment in IT on economic
performance: Implications for developing countries. World Development, 33(5), 681–
700. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/S0305750X050000
94
ITU. (2005, December). World Summit on Information Society. ITU.
ITU. (2010). World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report 2010: Monitoring the
WSIS Targets - A Mid term review (p. 258). des Nations, CH 1211 Geneva
Switzerland: ITU.
ITU. (2012). Measuring the Information Society (p. 230). CH-1211 Geneva Switzerland:
ITU. ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf
ITU & UNCTAD. (2007). World Information Society 2007 Report: Beyond WSIS. Geneva.
Jalava, J., & Pohjola, M. (2007). ICT as a source of output and productivity growth in
Finland. Telecommunications Policy, 31(8), 463–472. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/S03085961070005
35
Jovanovic, B., & Rousseau, P. L. (2005). General purpose technologies. Handbook of
Economic Growth, 1, 1181–1224. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/S15740684050101
8X
Kleine, D. (2009). ICT4What?-using the Choice Framework to operationalise the capability
approach to development. In Information and Communication Technologies and
Development (ICTD) (pp. 108–117). ICTD.
18
Meyer, M. (2000). Innovation roles: from souls of fire to devil’s advocates. Journal of
Business Communication, 37(4), 328–347. Retrieved from
http://job.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/content/37/4/328.short
Morales-Gómez, D., & Melesse, M. (1998). Utilising information and communication
technologies for development: the social dimensions. Information Technology for
Development, 8(1), 3–13.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations, (Spring), 145–162.
Ngwenyama, O., Bollou, F., Andoh-Baidoo, F., & Morawczynski, O. (2006). Is There A
Relationship Between ICT, Health, Education And Development? An Empirical
Analysis of Five West African Countries From 1997 - 2003. The Electronic Journal
on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 23(5), 1 – 11. Retrieved from
http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/189/147
OECD. (2004). The Economic Impact of ICT Measurement, Evidence and Implications:
Measurement, Evidence and Implications. OECD Publishing.
Page, J. (2011). Should Africa Industrialize?. Working paper//World Institute for
Development Economics Research. Retrieved from
http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/54018
Page, J. (2012). Can Africa Industrialise? Journal of African Economies, 21(suppl 2), ii86–
ii124. Retrieved from http://jae.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/suppl_2/ii86.short
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rohman, I. K. (2012). On the weightless economy: Evaluating ICT sectors in the European,
Asian and African regions. Chalmers University of Technology. Retrieved from
http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/158108?pubid=137912
Schoderbek, P., Schoderbek, C., & Kefalas, A. (1990). Management systems: conceptual
considerations. Bpi/Irwin Homewood, IL
Sen, A. (1990). Development as Capability Expansion. Oxford University Press. Retrieved
from
http://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tUTQP4CHUO4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA3
19&dq=the+basis+for+Sen%27s+capabilities&ots=tSlJIE0nHu&sig=S3ARDzdARg
UvumiWN7FQyjX05kQ
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
Smith, M. L., Spence, R., & Rashid, A. T. (2011). Mobile phones and expanding human
capabilities. Information Technologies & International Development, 7(3), pp–77.
Retrieved from http://itidjournal.org/itid/article/view/762
Steyn, J. (2011). Paradigm Shift Required for ICT4D. In J. Steyn & G. Johanson (Eds) ICTs
and Sustainable Solutions for the Digital Divide: Theory and Perspectives (pp. 19-
44). Downloaded on 22 June 2015 from http://www.ethnosproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/digital-divide-thery-perspectives.pdf.
Steyn, J., & Kirlidog, M. (2013). A Brief Critique of The Standard View of ICT4D. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Social Implications of
Computers in Developing Countries (pp. 645–664). Ocho Rios, Jamaica: IFIP WG
9.4.
Sutinen, E., & Tedre, M. (2010). ICT4D: A computer science perspective. In T. Elomaa, H.
Manilla & P. Orponen (Eds.), Algorithms and Applications (pp. 221–231). Springer.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-
12476-1_16
The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. (2010). Core ICT Indicators 2010 (p.
94). CH-1211 Geneva Switzerland: ITU.
19
Tongia, R., & Subrahmanian, E. (2006). Information and Communications Technology for
Development (ICT4D)-A design challenge? In Information and Communication
Technologies and Development, 2006. ICTD’06. International Conference on (pp.
243–255). Retrieved from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4085538
WSIS. (2003). Declaration of Principles (Document No. WSIS-03). Geneva: WSIS.