Using
a Sustainable
Livelihoods
Approach
to Assessing
the Impact
of ICTs in Development
Sarah Parkinson
PhD Candidate, the Rural Studies Programme at the
University of
Ricardo Ramírez
Associate Professor in the School of Environmental
Design and Rural Development,
<rramirez@uoguelph.ca>
Abstract
This paper describes the sustainable
livelihoods framework as a useful tool in assessing the contribution of ICTs to
development projects. Assessing the role of ICTs in development can be
difficult because they are so multifaceted, and because the effect of ICT use
is often indirect. This paper argues that applying the sustainable livelihood
frameworks in assessment can help to broaden their scope in a manageable way
and prove more analytically rigorous than other available methods. The example
of an impact assessment of a Colombian telecentre is used to demonstrate how
such an approach can be applied.
Introduction
Information
and communication technologies (ICTs) have become of increasing interest in
development, both for their potential value, and for the potential risk of
greater socioeconomic exclusion faced by those populations who cannot access or
benefit from ICTs in the context of the emerging global knowledge society. Yet when using ICTs in development projects,
results often fail to live up to expectations, and in implementation, sideways
turns are not unusual.
The very
flexibility of ICTs can make their use somewhat hard to plan and predict,
especially in new contexts. Arguably,
careful planning of expected outcomes could be counterproductive and stifle the
full creative potential of new technologies.
At the same time, the desire for accountability and effective
development requires serious efforts to understand what impact, or at least
influence, ICT-related development efforts have had on people’s lives. Assessment and evaluation has thus been a
concern since ICT-focused development efforts began in the mid-1990s. One major
area of focus has been the provision of access through public access sites
known as telecentres and cybercafés (Gómez et al., 1999; Roman and Colle,
2002). In the 1990s, many donor
supported initiatives focused on the development of telecentres, the impact of
which has often been challenging to understand (
How
researchers analyse and understand impact will depend a great deal on how they
understand development itself, what it is and how it is to be achieved. Development was originally conceptualized as
a fairly linear, straightforward technical intervention to push nations along a
linear path from “less developed” to “more developed,” with a primary focus on
macroeconomic indicators such as the gross national product (GDP) (Martinussen,
1997). But experience and reflection has led most development practitioners to
reject this view as flawed and overly simplistic. Macroeconomic indicators do not show how
wealth is distributed, nor the political, economic, and social factors that all
contribute to quality of life. Sen
(1999) argues persuasively that development is not just about macroeconomic
growth. He provides an alternative
definition of development as an increase in the overall number and quality of
choices available to individuals in pursuing their lives and livelihoods. The principle of equity further indicates
that the choices of one individual should not negatively impact on the choices
of another, if we are to term the outcome to be “development.” Poverty, within this conceptualization,
refers not so much to the absence of finance as to the absence of options for
obtaining basic needs, and is intimately bound both to the specific context in
which it arises and to the perspectives and capacities of the individuals
experiencing it.
The
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, which grows out of this more complex systems
perspective, is a tool often used by development agencies for planning and
assessing development interventions. It
focuses on how people strategically use the resources available to them to
forge livelihoods, and how development interventions affect the available
resources and the way people interact with them. This paper argues that the Sustainable Livelihoods
Framework is a useful tool in the assessment of ICT development projects. For young projects, the framework is
particularly promising for assessing early and probable future impacts at the
community-level. These assessments have
an important practical value in allowing for early feedback so that project
design and assumptions can be tested and adjusted, but they are difficult to
achieve through other forms of qualitative analysis or through a purely
statistical or econometric approach.
To describe how the Sustainable Livelihood
Framework can be applied, this paper uses a specific example of a telecentre
impact assessment. The telecentre in
this study was located in the District of Aguablanca, in the city of
The
telecentre was operated by the Fundación Carvajal and funded from 2000 to 2003
by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of
This paper
is organized into three parts. Part I covers the theoretical context through a
brief review of the literature on information and communication technologies
for development (often referred to as ICT4D) with attention to impact
assessment from a sustainable livelihoods (SL) perspective. Part II presents a
case study of the Aguablanca telecentre described above, where an assessment of
impact was done using the SL framework. This assessment was carried out as part
of a master’s degree program, independent from the evaluation activities of the
implementing agencies. A closing section
provides lessons and conclusions for future research in this field.
Part
I: The Theoretical and Methodological Context
ICTs in Development – Universal Access as a Core Issue
Universal
access to ICTs means that all members of a society should be able to use ICTs
if they choose to. It has been a common
policy goal in many countries since the mid-1990s, and is usually
operationalized in terms of quantified benchmarks, such as having all members
of a population within a given radius of services (Parkinson, 2005). Universal access discourse is bound up with
ideas about social equity. The term
“inequity” connotes an unjust difference, so “social equity” is fairly
synonymous with the term “social justice” (Henwood et al, 2000). The rationale for universal access is that
lack of access to ICTs represents both cause and effect of social
marginalization (Castells 1999; Gómez and Martínez 2001).
Attempts to
increase public access through aid-funded development projects began to take
place in a number of “undeveloped” countries by the mid-1990s and continues to
the present. The main technique has been
to subsidize the start-up and first few years of operating telecentres. These are places where people can come and
use the technology and a range of related services, which often include training. Results from these projects have been quite
mixed, and this has sparked debate as to the best role for the public sector in
promoting universal access (Delgadillo, Gómez et al. 2002; Parkinson 2005). One point of contention is whether universal
access to ICTs should be a public issue at all.
Secondly, if universal access is agreed to be a valid public policy
goal, the second debate is on whether the direct subsidization of telecentres
and suchlike is really the most effective means of achieving it (Dymond and
Oestmann 2002; Kenny 2002). The case
study presented later in this paper was designed to investigate some of these
questions empirically.
Although the
understanding of ICTs in development has become more nuanced over time, there
is still a tendency overall, and especially in policy statements, media
coverage, and project documentation, for the positive aspects of
ICT-for-development projects to be overstated, without a deeper reflection on
the reality of the impact (Benjamin 2001; Heeks 2002). Yet it is necessary to cut through some of
this to understand, explore and ultimately to build on the real potential for
ICTs in development. This issue is particularly important because of the
sustainability dimension. If and when
donor-funded ICT projects end, under what conditions can telecentres generate
enough economic value for their users so that people can and will pay for
services that could maintain these centres as viable enterprises?
Assessing Impact: The
Need and the Challenge
In ICT-for-development
projects, there is very rarely a direct causal link between the intervention
and the benefit realized, and the benefits themselves may be very hard to
predict, especially when ICTs are introduced in an open-ended manner, such as
through a telecentre. A child may use a
telecentre to research a homework project; an older woman may use it to
communicate to her son working overseas.
Different users may value their use for distinct reasons, not always in
line with the expectations of the project designers. As has been commonly found in other
development projects, there may be unintended negative consequences with the
introduction of a telecentre. One such
consequence that has arisen in a number of cases is the resistance that occurs
when broad access to information provides the basis for challenges to existing
authority structures and power relationships (Delgadillo, Gómez et al. 2002;
Batchelor and Sugden 2003).
Benjamin
(2000) and Hudson (1999) both note that these indirect effects, whether
negative or positive, create a challenge for assessment. Both further note a related challenge which
occurs when the project does not go as initially expected: for example, if the
technology itself fails to work correctly, then it is difficult to research and
draw conclusions regarding the validity of other project goals and assumptions
that depend upon a working system. Project assessment needs to be able to take
a broad approach in understanding how ICTs interact with the environment in
which they become embedded, while also recognizing the chain of causal
assumptions that lie behind the project itself.
There have
been a number of evaluation frameworks and methodologies suggested in the
assessment of ICT for development initiatives (Ramírez and Richardson,
2005). At the macro-level, statistical
indicators and econometric approaches, such as those used by the International
Telecommunications Unit of the United Nations (ITU) and World Bank,
predominate. At the project level, which
is the focus of this paper, early frameworks began to appear in the mid to late
1990s (Ernberg 1998). These focused
primarily on assessing the use and impact of the early, experimental
donor-funded telecentres. Whyte’s (2000)
guide to telecentre evaluation suggested the use of an extensive list of
indicators prior to the beginning of the project and then at intervals
throughout as a way of gauging progress.
The reason for the large number of indicators was precisely because it
was unclear where changes or effects might occur, and so the idea was to be as
comprehensive as possible. However, this
necessarily leads to significant practical challenges, particularly concerning
the resources required to capture all of the required information, and the
availability of skilled personnel to follow through and manage the data. In practice, very few projects have made use
of more than a few basic indicators.
Stoll et al. (2002) suggest that collecting first-hand stories from
people about how they make use of the technologies is the best approach, as
this allows relevant data to emerge, without the need to predict or to
exhaustively catalog. However, although these authors also suggest collecting
stories from a wide range of actors so as to gain a complete picture, others
have noted that the anecdotal quality of many such reports tends to focus on
the positive and downplay the negative aspects of the technology, and thus runs
the risk of being a tool for propaganda rather than a basis for valid research. More recently, analysts have argued for a
more rigorous analytical approach that combines several dimensions and
complementary data collection tools (O'Farrell, Norrish et al. 1999).
Rationale for a
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
Robert
Chambers, a key supporter of a sustainable livelihoods approach, argues that
the way development professionals conceptualise development and poverty is very
different from how poor people themselves view these. Poor people perceive
poverty in a much more complex manner than do development professionals and
they employ a range of strategies, not only to maximize income, but also to
minimise risk and to protect or increase other things that they value. Poor people’s priorities are often different
from those imputed to them by development experts, and their strategies are
often more complex, both in terms of activity and motivation Thus it is argued,
the sustainable livelihoods framework (Figure 1) provides a conceptualisation
that is more appropriate to the perspectives and realities of poor people.(Chambers
1995).
Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihood
Framework (DFID 2001)
The focus of
“livelihood” in sustainable livelihoods (SL) frameworks is an attempt to move
away from narrow definitions of poverty, and as such reframes the broad aim of
development as an effort to improve people’s livelihood options. “Livelihood” refers broadly to a means of
making a living, and includes the assets, access to institutions and processes,
and strategies that a person utilizes to achieve livelihood outcomes (Ashley
and Carney, 1999). The term
“sustainable” refers both to the characteristic of a livelihood to endure the
various shocks and uncertainties likely to be encountered in the environment,
and to avoid contributing to long-term depletion of natural resources (Chambers
1987).
There are a
number of SL frameworks that have been developed and adapted by donor agencies,
NGOs, and research organizations (Arun et al, 2004). One of the most well-known is DFID’s
framework, which is the one used in this paper.
However, the same general principles apply to all. All of the frameworks focus on the intended
beneficiaries of development as actors who make choices and strategies based on
the resources available to them and the environment in which they exist. As such, these choices are based on perceived
opportunities and risks. One quality of
poverty is vulnerability to life’s vicissitudes, which make up the
“vulnerability context” and include factors such as seasonality (i.e. any changes
related to the seasons such as commodity price fluctuations), shocks (war,
drought, sickness or the death of a relative, etc.), and trends (inflation,
decrease of certain types of employment, rising land prices, etc.).
In DFID’s
framework, there are five types of assets pictured as corners of a pentagon,
which is meant to emphasis their interrelatedness. The five assets are human, social, physical,
natural and financial. These can also be
referred to as human capital, social capital, and so on. The terms “asset” and “capital” are roughly interchangeable
in this framework, then, except that the term “capital” emphasizes the concept
of potential investment or depletion (Pretty, 2003). Each actor may either own or have access to a
unique set of these assets, although patterns of ownership/accessibility may be
discerned within a given social context.
The concept
of structures and processes is quite broad and brings in all the social and
cultural factors that may shape livelihoods.
It is mainly at this point that the SL framework attempts to link macro
and micro-factors. These structures and
processes may be accessible to people who may use them in their strategies, but
they also shape and constrain people’s possibilities.
People work
within all of these factors – the risks they face, the assets they own or can
access, and the social reality of their culture, system of government, private
sector, to weave livelihood strategies which result in livelihood
outcomes. These outcomes can include
increased income and savings, but more broadly, include improved well-being,
reduced vulnerability to risk, improved future livelihood options, and the
sustenance, or even replenishment, of natural resources.
This is a
very cursory overview of the SL framework.
However, numerous resources on the SL framework and how to use it are
available, including DFID’s SL guidance sheets, and a number of comprehensive
books (DFID, 2001; Bebbington, 1999; Helmore & Singh, 2001). One quality of the SL framework that is
immediately apparent is that it requires interpretation and adaptation to fit
any particular context. As such, the SL
framework is not expected to be used in a fixed prescriptive way: "The
framework is centred on people. It does not work in a linear manner and does
not try to present a model of reality. Its aim is to help stakeholders with
different perspectives to engage in structured and coherent debate about the
many factors that affect livelihoods, their relative importance and the way in
which they interact" (DFID, 2001).
Of particular relevance to ICTs, the framework embraces multiple
dimensions that are interrelated in a dynamic manner. In this sense, the SL
framework is a systemic representation, and one that appears most promising in
the context of impact assessment of telecentres (Bryden, 1994).
One of the
noted strengths of impact assessment using the SL approach is that it is useful
for identifying unanticipated impacts (DFID, 2001). With a potentially enabling development such
as a telecentre, one would hope for a wide range of uses and this makes impact
hard to predict. The framework allows
one to consider how a development project affects the types of decisions people
are making, given the risks they face and the assets that they are able to
access, thus putting impact assessment in a more comprehensive context
(Fujisaka, Khisa et al. 2000). But the
approach also has limitations: it can be large and complex to implement,
requiring a lot of discretionary expertise and time to use well, it can
generate a lot of interesting but hard to analyse qualitative detail, while
failing to provide any sort of firm or conclusive answers, and it may not
readily lend itself to generalization (Farrington, Carney et al. 1999).
The
rationale for using the SL framework for ICT-related issues is that it is comprehensive
and it helps us to think about ICTs in a more “bottom-up” way. For example, in what ways, positive, negative
or neutral, are ICTs in the context of a specific project likely to interact
with different livelihood strategies?
Which demographic groups within the population are most likely to use
these strategies? And thus, who is most
likely to be impacted by ICTs, and in what ways?
The
application of the SL framework creates a kind of “big picture” context that
moves away from the linear cause-effect thinking that is so clearly ineffective
in ICT-related development projects (Heeks, 2002). ICTs are introduced into an existing and
already complex web of mutual causality.
People, as actors who are seeking to make their livelihood and to
maintain, increase or minimize loss to their existing asset base, are likely to
use ICTs when they can do so in a way that provides a net benefit to these
goals. Existing behaviour and resources
thus become the foundation for building new behaviour that incorporates the use
of ICTs. From such a vantage point, a
more powerful analysis is possible than one that starts from a point of view of
looking at the technology and how it is conventionally used in other contexts,
or how development planners envision it ought to be used in an ideal world
(Gurstein, 2003; O’Farrell et al., 1999).
Mardle
(2003), for example, argues that policies that define universal access in terms
of geographic scope (e.g. a telecentre within 5 kilometres of all people) can
prove problematic when viewed in terms of livelihoods. Firstly, telecentre services may not provide
a net benefit to most rural poor, given their livelihood strategies and the
time it costs to visit a telecentre even a few kilometres away. Secondly, because relatively fewer people,
usually the more wealthy and educated, are likely to perceive benefit from, and
therefore to use telecentres, a telecentre in a poor rural area will not be
able to generate sufficient income to maintain itself through user fees, as was
often envisaged by policy makers.
The
Aguablanca telecentre is used here as an example of how the SL framework was
used as a structure to organize and analyse field data and link it back to the
issue of social equity.
Part
II: The Approach Applied: The Case of a Telecentre in Cali , Colombia
This section
outlines how the SL framework was applied in the impact assessment of the
Aguablanca telecentre described in the introduction of this paper. Whilst the SL framework is compatible with
participatory research approaches, this impact assessment used a more
conventional combination of surveys and interviews conducted over a period of
about two months. This approach provided
a fairly quick and effective way of gaining an understanding of the varying
experiences of the different demographic groups that would provide relevant
insights to the impact of the internet on social equity. This section explains the main research
stages and most specifically, the analysis using the livelihoods framework.
The earlier
discussion of the SL framework emphasized the need to adapt the framework to
the particular research context and purpose.
In the case of this research, the context was a densely populated
marginalized urban area and the research purpose was to analyse the probable
impact of internet use, accessed through the telecentre, on local social
equity. Through the lens of the SL
framework, the guiding question of the research could be stated as: “Is the
availability of the internet at the telecentre leading to improved livelihood
outcomes for local residents, especially those who face the most limitations on
their livelihood options?” The way the
SL framework was adapted and applied in this case is summarized in Table 1. The vulnerability context set a general
backdrop for interpreting how and why people pursued the livelihood strategies
they did. The telecentre was the key
structure considered in terms of potentially transforming people’s livelihood
strategies, whilst other internet venues locally available were also included
for comparison.
Table 1:
Application of sustainable livelihoods framework in the Aguablanca telecentre
case study
|
SL element: |
Vulnerability context |
Livelihood assets |
Transforming structures and processes |
Livelihood strategies |
|
Adaptations: |
Seasonality not considered; Some structures and processes
(including culture, law and law enforcement) were considered as part of the
vulnerability context – risks that residents had to strategically manage,
rather than as transformative |
Natural assets not considered (not
very relevant in this case) |
Key focal areas were the internet available at the
telecentre, and the internet available at other venues. Other important institutions included
schools, the informal market, and the formal job market. |
General categories of livelihood strategies were
abstracted from the research data. |
|
Key questions: |
What risks do residents living in
Aguablanca face? |
What common assets do residents have or access? How do they make use of these assets in their
livelihood strategies? |
Who uses the internet at the telecentre, and for
what purposes? Who uses the internet at other venues, and for what
purposes? Comparing the telecentre and other venues, do the
people, and/or their reasons for using the internet vary? |
What general livelihood strategies
do residents (categorized by gender, age and level of education) use? How does the use of the internet tie in to people’s
livelihood strategies? |
|
Research purpose: |
Provides an interpretive context for understanding
livelihood strategies (i.e. in terms of risk reduction). |
Contributes to analysis of how prior factors (such
as being educated, having money, or having social networks) contribute to
livelihood strategies which may, in turn, may be enhanced by a particular
kind of internet use. |
A necessary first step in seeing how use contributes
to livelihood strategy. The comparison between the telecentre and other
internet venues allows for analysis of what special quality or contribution
the telecentre makes (i.e. Does it make a difference?} |
Meets main research purpose by determining who is
able to use the internet to enhance their livelihood strategy/outcomes and
who is not. |
Step One: Vulnerability
Context, Assets and Livelihoods
Analysis
began with the broader context in which the users lived and operated. The development goals of the telecentre were
mainly centred on improving the economic well-being of the community in which
it was located, although mainly in indirect ways, by facilitating users’
abilities to earn money. Some of the
objectives included linking urban food sellers with rural farmers, helping
people to find jobs, and facilitating small local enterprise, for example. Because of this, the case study focused on
the economic strategies of telecentre users as the most important factors
conditioning the way the telecentre was used and the local impacts of such use. Insofar as the telecentre was expected to
provide some economic benefit to its users, their motivations for using the
telecentre could best be interpreted in light of these strategies, as well as
their past experiences. Whether or not
they chose to use the telecentre would also depend on the other options
available to them for achieving equivalent ends.
A survey of
102 surrounding households provided demographic information, including
information about the occupations of household occupants and their history of
internet and computer use. This included
information about how their internet and computer use, if any, related to their
livelihood activities, and if they did not use ICTs, the reasons for non-use
(Selwyn, 2003). This survey was
augmented by available census information and other documentation on the
district, including contextual information related to culture, crime and
safety, health, and the district’s history and geography.
Step Two: The Telecentre, Its Users and Uses
Information
about the organizational context in which the telecentre operated was through
key informant interviews with relevant personnel as well as reviews of all
project-related reports, meeting minutes and other related papers. This step can be located in the “policy/ institutions/
process” box of the sustainable livelihood framework (Figure 1), and was
necessary to understand how and why the telecentre operated as it did, and
through this to better understand its interface with the surrounding community.
Additionally,
staff from two other local public internet access sites were interviewed. These were both commercial businesses, and
were included since they were relevant to the broader community ICT context
into which the telecentre was entering, although one had opened only after the
telecentre had begun operations.
The next
stage of the research was to assess who used the telecentre and for what. For this purpose, a phone survey was
conducted with 100 randomly selected telecentre users (all users were
registered and their phone numbers taken at the time of use – over 95% of users
were able to provide a phone number).
The survey gathered demographic information about the users, their
occupations, and their use of the telecentre.
This allowed for comparison between the demographics of the telecentre
users and the surrounding population, and between subgroups: for example,
internet users at the telecentre compared with internet users elsewhere.
Additionally,
semi-structured in-person interviews were conducted with 27 of the 100 telecentre
users who were contacted by telephone.
All phone interviewees were asked if they would be willing to
participate in an in-person interview and all but three agreed. The actual interviewees were selected to get
a large demographic range of users.
Specific questions were asked of those who were unemployed, those who
were self-employed, and of students, to learn more about how their telecentre
use related to their current or prospective livelihood. Students were included as a special category
because they were important telecentre users: they made up about half of the
total clientele. More detailed questions
about the use of services, experiences at the telecentre, and the way the use
of the telecentre factored into their other day-to-day activities were asked of
the interviewees, including questions intended to gauge the possibility of
indirect impact of their use on other people.
There was,
at the time of research, only one organization that regularly used the
telecentre’s services. Interviews were
also conducted with representatives of this organization.
Sustainable Livelihood
Analysis and Implications
The
information gathered from the surveys, interviews and document review formed
the basis for the sustainable livelihoods analysis. Firstly, the District of Aguablanca, and
especially the neighbourhoods immediately surrounding the telecentre, were
analysed in terms of the vulnerability context – this came mainly from the
document review. Major sources of
vulnerability were categorized as economic, environmental, human, social,
physical and political. Specific
vulnerabilities included (amongst others) high unemployment, flooding,
violence, inadequate health care services, insufficient numbers of public schools,
and police violence.
Secondly, the
research classified peoples’ livelihood strategies into four main types. The classification was based on the way that
people in Aguablanca used the financial, human, physical and social assets
available to them to generate livelihood outcomes. “Financial assets” refers to money; whilst
“physical assets” consist of any material possessions a person owns or has
access to. The most important physical
asset for most residents of Aguablanca was a house. The possibility of being a home-owner was one
of the reasons many gave for coming to Aguablanca. “Human assets” include health, education, and
skills that a person possesses. And
“social assets” include formal and informal social relationships and
connections. In Aguablanca, informal
social networks were clearly important to people’s survival. Many people came to the area because they had
relatives already there, and they depended on relatives, friends and neighbours
for assistance in difficult times.
Perhaps because Aguablanca was a very poor and marginalized area which
received relatively little outside assistance or recognition, residents also
had a kind of social solidarity striking to an outsider.
Most of the
livelihood strategies employed in Aguablanca consisted of converting one or
more of the physical, human, or social assets into money over the short or
long-term. This reflects the fact that Aguablanca is a densely populated urban
area dependent on the cash economy.
There are few residents in any position to grow any of their food, for
example, and meeting most basic needs requires cash. Social assets, however,
could also generate positive livelihood outcomes on their own.
The four
main livelihood strategies were:
- Increasing
financial capital in the short-term, through the conversion of human,
physical or social capital. For
example, people can use their skills (human capital) to work and earn
income. If they are self-employed,
they may also own some equipment (physical capital) that helps them in
their work. Or they may be able to ask a trusted relative (social capital)
for a loan. .
- Increasing financial capital in the long-term (through investment
in human, physical or social capital) as for example through investing in
education to improve formal employment prospects.
- Reducing the reliance on financial assets by developing other
assets that result in direct livelihood benefits, such as home ownership.
- Reducing the draw on financial assets: when there is no other way
to generate the required amount of money to meet needs, people must cut
back as for example by withdrawing children from school, stopping payment
on utility bills, etc. Such actions
usually have negative consequences but arise from necessity.
This
analysis was extended by considering which major demographic groups (i.e. children,
young women, young men, older people, and displaced people) tended to be
affected by the overall vulnerability context and which type of livelihood
strategy was predominant for each of these groups. For example, for younger people, the overall
preferred strategy was investment in formal education with the hope that this
would lead to formal employment.
However, many families have problems accessing such education and thus
must turn to other, less preferred strategies.
Older adults generally have less formal education but stronger informal
skills and social networks. They tend to
use these to pursue long-term goals at the household level by supporting their
younger family members financially so they can pursue education.
The analysis
then turned to the pattern of the use of computers and the internet, both
accessed through the telecentre and accessed through other places, such as at
work, school, or cybercafes. This
analysis showed that overall, the telecentre catered to the same demographic
that tended to use the internet elsewhere: younger, more educated people. In this sense, it was not changing or
expanding the accessibility of the technology to otherwise marginalized groups. The telecentre had a slightly higher
proportion of young student users, most likely because it was in the same
location as a library highly frequented by these students.
Finally, the
analysis considered how internet use, both at the telecentre and elsewhere, fit
in with the existing livelihood strategies of the users, as well as those who
might be indirectly impacted through their actions. Among the findings emerging from this
analysis were that even among those who were unemployed and used the internet,
very few had used it in their job search, and most considered it inappropriate
for that use. Likewise, self-employed
people who used the internet rarely used it, or had any ambition to use it, in
support of their business needs. Rather
the principle uses by both these groups were similar to other people’s pattern
of use: to keep in touch with relatives overseas through e-mail, to learn how
to use computers in hopes of getting better employment, and using the internet
to help complete homework. Despite telecentre goals that linked directly to
helping people with their economic needs, few people had considered using the
internet or its other resources for this purpose. Rather, people used it
primarily for the second type of livelihood strategy, namely investing in
education and the knowledge of ICTs since these were seen as a new prerequisite
for entering the formal economy. This
came out strongly in both the in-depth interviews and the surveys. For example, those people who did not use the
internet often explained that they did not do so because they did not have
formal education, or were otherwise barred from entering the formal economy,
and so there was no purpose in learning ICTs.
Although the majority of Aguablanca’s residents were engaged in the
informal economy, they aspired for their children or themselves, if they were
young, to find formal employment that promised a higher material standard of
living.
Lessons
and Conclusions
Some of the
observations, indeed those that came across most strongly, in the impact
assessment of the Aguablanca telecentre may seem obvious – and yet they are
routinely not the starting place when drafting ICT policies and designing ICT4D
interventions. Although simplistic
notions that technology can result in predictable outcomes through a process of
linear causation are regularly rejected at the academic level, they still find
themselves into ICT policy statements and programme designs with surprising
regularity. They are easy to communicate
and have a certain romantic appeal.
As an
alternative, the SL framework is a powerful way of grounding such policies and
interventions in reality and taking a broader look. It reminds us of the multidimensional,
context-specific nature of both poverty and development. Some authors, such as Mardle (2003),
Batchelor and Scott (2001), have applied sustainable livelihoods to ICT-related
development essentially as a thought experiment at a more general level. In the example of the telecentre impact
assessment given in this paper, the SL framework was applied empirically, and
some of the data gathered specifically helped to answer questions raised by the
framework: what kinds of risks and vulnerabilities do people face? What are some of the key factors determining
their livelihoods? How does their use of
the internet or other telecentre services link to their livelihood strategies?
The SL
framework is very broad, and it is questionable how far and in how much detail
one should go when applying it. The SL
framework was originally designed with a rural, agrarian context in mind, and
includes factors such as natural resources and seasonality, which are less
salient when considering urban livelihood strategies. In the case described here, the SL framework
was used selectively and natural resources and seasonality were not really
considered. Those advocating the SL
framework do not expect it to be used mechanically, so discretion is required,
and ultimately, it is up to the researcher to determine which aspects to apply,
and these are dependent upon the particular goals of the research and each
particular context. Still, the SL
framework provides greater structure than the gathering of stories advocated in
some ICT evaluation methods (Stoll et al., 2002). The danger of such stories –if they are the
only source of data- is that they only represent one aspect of the whole
picture, and this aspect is likely to be one which reflects the interests of
the reviewer. When internal evaluations
are done to satisfy funders, there is a natural desire to show that the money
was well spent and to emphasize the results that were positive. A more holistic framework such as the SL
framework will allow for a more rigorous analysis, and help to offset this
understandable bias and provide a fuller, more nuanced understanding.
This is not
to say that the SL framework is without its critics. One important criticism has been that it
overemphasizes the notion of self-help for the poor populations to whom it is
usually applied, while focusing on the complexity of their livelihoods. This can result in an under-emphasis on
macroeconomic and political issues that are of key importance (Toufique 2001;
Toner 2002; O'Laughlin 2004). For
example, in the case of ICTs, the dominance of the global ICT industry by
relatively few large companies is an important macroeconomic reality which can
also condition local realities. If the
use of SL frameworks were to cause researchers to overlook this bigger picture
and its impact on local situations, that would be doing a disservice
to the area of ICT for development as a whole.
For this reason, the SL framework is not the be-all-and-end-all for ICT
for development impact assessments, but it is a useful and powerful analytical
tool that deserves greater attention.
References
Arun, S., Heeks, R. & Morgan, S.
(2004). Researching ICT-based enterprise
for women in developing countries: A livelihoods perspective. Retrieved
Ashley, C
& Carney, D. (1999). Sustainable
livelihoods: Lessons from early experience.
Batchelor, S. & Scott, N.
(2001). The role of ICTs in the
development of sustainable livelihoods: A set of tables. Gamos Ltd.
Batchelor, S. & Sugden, S. (2003).
An analysis of info dev case studies:
Lessons learned. London: Gamos Ltd.
Benjamin, P. (2000). Telecentre 2000 report 1: Literature review.
Johannesburg: LINK Centre. University of Witswatersrand.
Benjamin, P. (2001). Digital divide research
in South Africa. d3 Workshop. Ann
Arbor, MI.
Castells, M. (1999). The
informational city is a dual city: Can it be reversed? In W. J. Mitchell (Ed.),
High technology and low-income
communities: Prospects for the positive use of advanced information technology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chambers, R. (1987). Sustainable livelihoods, environment and
development: putting poor rural people first? Sussex: Institute of
Development Studies.
Chambers, R. (1995). Poverty and livelihoods: Whose reality
counts? Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.
Delgadillo, K., & Gómez, R.
(2002). Community telecentres for
development: Lessons from community telecentres in Latin America and the
Caribbean. Ottawa, IDRC.
DFID (2001). Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets, DFID.
Dymond, A. & Oestmann, S.
(2002). ICTs, poverty alleviation and
universal access: Review of status and issues. Nairobi, Kenya: African
Technology Policy Studies Network.
Ernberg, J. (1998). Integrated rural development and universal
access: Towards a framework for evaluation of multipurpose community. Telecentre
Pilot projects implemented by ITU and its partners, ITU.
Farrington, J., & Carney, D.
(1999). Sustainable Livelihoods in
Practice: Early applications of concepts in rural areas. Natural
Resource Perspectives.
Fujisaka, S., & Khisa, G.
(2000). FFS/IPPM contributions to
sustainable livelihoods in Uganda and Kenya. Rome: FAO.
Gómez, R. & Martínez, J. (2001).
The Internet...Why? And What for? Thoughts on Information and Communication
Technologies for Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ottawa,
IDRC: Fundación Accesso.
Heeks, R. (2002). i-Development not
e-Development. Journal of International
Development, 14(1), 1-12.
Helmore, K. & N. Singh. (2001). Sustainable livelihoods: Building on the
wealth of the poor. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
Hudson, H. (1999). Designing research for telecentre
evaluation. Telecentre evaluation: A gobal prspective. Quebec: IDRC. Far
Hills Inn.
IDRC (1999). Internet for all: The promise of telcentres in Afrlica. Ottawa:
IDRC.
Kenny, C. (2002). Information and
communication technologies for direct poverty alleviation: Costs and benefits. Development Policy Review, 202, 141-157.
Mardle, E. (2003). Telecentres: How
did we lose the plot? World Bank
Development Gateway.
O'Farrell, C., & Norrish, P.
(1999). ICTs for sustainable livelihoods:
Preliminary study. London: ITDG.
O'Laughlin, B. (2004). Book reviews.
Development and Change, 35(2), 385-403.
Parkinson, S. (2005). Telecentres, Access and Development.
Bourton-on-Dunsmore. ITDG.
Paz, O. (2002). InforCauc@
Telecentros Comunitarios: Una Estrategia Para Fomentar el Desarrollo Sostenible
en el Suroccidente de Colombia. Informe
de Progreso. January 1 to December 31,
2001, Second Year. Cali: CIAT.
Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and connectedness: Issues and
implications for agriculture, rural development and natural resource management
in ACP countries. Netherlands: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
Co-operation (CTA).
Russell, N. (2001). A project progress report: Evaluating and
enhancing the impact of community telecenters: A companion project of the
inforcauca initiative to foster sustainable development in marginalized
regions. Cali: CIAT.
Stoll, K., & Menou, M. (2002). Learning about ICTs' role in development: A
framework toward a participatory, transparent and continuous process.
Ottawa: IDRC.
Toner, A. (2002). Sustainable livelihoods approaches - Can
they transform development? Bradford, BCID, University of Bradford.
Toufique, K. (2001). Rights and
livelihoods. Workshop, Dhaka,
Bangladesh: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies and Power and
Participation Research Centre.
Whyte, A. (2000). Assessing
community telecentres: Guidelines for researchers. Ottawa, IDRC.