Emily Keaney

In this article Emily Keaney of the ippr examines how far the Geneva session of the World Summit on the Information Society has resolved some of the contentious issues that emerged in the preparatory process, and suggests that to really move forward the debate must reach a wider audience.

"The Summit has placed a new subject on the international agenda: the information society." So claimed Swiss President Pascal Couchepin in a speech about the influence of the 2003 phase of the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva. Unfortunately it would seem that the subject is considerably higher on some agendas than others.

A clear difference in emphasis between developed and developing countries was apparent long before the event itself. There was strong disagreement on a number of issues on the Summit agenda, including freedom of information, internet governance, and sustainable funding and investment mechanisms. This last issue in particular saw the US and the UK advocating the creation of favourable regulatory and political climates for information and communications technology investment, while developing countries, particularly the African nations, campaigned hard for the introduction of a Digital Inclusion Fund in the belief that ICT is essential to their economic development and that large amounts of aid are necessary to provide the infrastructure to support it. The urgency felt by many of these developing country governments was demonstrated by the high level delegations they sent to Geneva, while Western delegations tended to be rather lower on their respective political ladders.

The result, for the 2003 session at least, has been deadlock. Calls for a Digital Inclusion Fund have been met with the promise of a feasibility study which seems unlikely to move either side far from its entrenched position. As things stand therefore there is little reason to hope that the Tunis round of discussions in 2005 will move things on either.

The arguments on both sides have merit. Although most research on the economic impact of ICTs has focused on developed economies it is difficult to imagine a country becoming a serious player on the world economic stage without an advanced ICT infrastructure and developing country governments are understandably worried about being left behind yet again. It is also the case that many of the major ICT companies view significant investment in developing markets as too high risk for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand there are far more pressing needs for many developing countries than ICT infrastructure and the UK and the US are right to be cautious. A specific Digital Inclusion fund runs the risk not only of diverting money away from other development initiatives but also, given the paucity of robust evaluation in this field, of spending those resources it does have on measures that have less than optimal impact.

What is needed to begin to break this stalemate is a change of perspective. While the aims of WSIS are admirable the premise underpinning it is flawed. Technology is offered as a panacea on a grand scale, capable of improving the health, wealth and participatory democracy of any country prepared to embrace it. Of course ICT can contribute to these aims, but it is one tool among many, and needs to be treated as such. When the concept of eGovernemnt was introduced to the UK excited calculations were made of the huge savings that would come from putting services online, with little consideration of the important caveat - for savings to materialise citizens would have to abandon traditional channels in large numbers for the new e-enabled services. This, of course, relied on the new services offering significant improvements on what was already on offer. It is the quality of the service, not the method of delivery, which matters. Fortunately in the UK this attitude has begun to change, but in Geneva the atmosphere was still one in which hyperbole took precedence over evidence. The action plan that emerged from Geneva aims to connect 50% of the world's population by 2015. The problem with this target is clear: rather than focusing on technology's role as an enabler and the improvements it could bring to existing international development initiatives, it deals only with increasing its volume, assuming that this in itself will automatically bring benefits and failing to incorporate the need for more basic interventions, such as access to electricity.

The introduction of a more balanced perspective, in which ICTs are seen as a vital addition to a varied armoury in the fight against poverty and hunger, makes it clear that a crucial voice is missing. The mainstream development community has played very little part in the WSIS process so far. While some government delegations included representatives from, or were advised by, the relevant international development divisions, for a summit which included among its stated aims a desire to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals it was hardly a mainstream event on the development calendar. With a few notable exceptions such as Sweden, who sent their Minister for Development Cooperation, Carin Jämtin, government delegations from both the developed and the developing worlds were headed up by Ministers with responsibility for communications and technology policy, not international development. This trend was continued among the civil society delegations with the major development charities conspicuous by their absence.

Until ICT becomes a mainstreamed part of the development agenda any attempt to explore the contribution which technology can make to development will be flawed. ICT cannot solve these problems in isolation. As long as the ICT community continue to talk just to each other the people who are at the forefront of the fight to achieve the Millennium Development Goals will never fully appreciate the potential that ICTs do have. President Couchepin was overly optimistic in his claim. The WSIS has certainly created an international agenda in the ICT community, and it may even have raised the profile of development among that community, but it is still largely a community that is talking to itself. The challenge for Tunis is to spread the message a little wider, and put ICT on the international agenda not just for those who are already convinced of its potential, but also for the vast majority of the development community who are yet to realise its possibilities.

Emily Keaney
Research and Events Assistant, Digital Society Team
Institute for Public Policy Research
30 - 32 Southampton St
London WC2E 7RA
+44 (0)20 7470 6156
e.keaney@ippr.org
www.ippr.org/digitalsociety
ippr is Britain's leading progressive think tank. Through our well-researched and clearly argued policy analysis, reports and publications, our strong networks in government, academia and the corporate and voluntary sectors and our high media profile, we play a vital role in maintaining the momentum of progressive thought.