The ICT4D 2.0 Manifesto: Where Next for ICTs and International Development?

In this paper, Professor Richard Heeks argues that the application of information and communication technology for development (ICT4D) is moving to a new phase - from "ICT4D 1.0" to "ICT4D 2.0" - and describes the implications of this shift.

First, Heeks reviews the background to these phases, charting the logic and chronology of applying ICTs in developing countries. He starts by describing "ICT4D 0.0", which began when a digital computer was installed in Kolkata in 1956 at the Indian Institute of Statistics for numerical calculation work. From that early start, information technology (IT) was applied mainly to internal administrative functions of the public sector in developing countries. During the 1980s, IT began to be seen as a tool for delivery of economic growth in the private sector. According to Heeks, 2 things happened in the 1990s that gave birth to "ICT4D 1.0": the internet became generally available, and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were articulated. During this time "ICT4D" came into the picture, and was highlighted through "a flurry of publications, bodies, events, programmes and project funding." For example, there were inclusive e-government initiatives aiming to increase delivery of public services via the internet, and there were enabling actions on ICT governance, seeking to ensure that economically poor countries' interests were included in the global regimes that control the internet and telecommunications traffic and tariffs. But most energies, Heeks notes, were reserved for focused projects: those that took ICTs into economically poor communities, seeking to deliver information and services that might address poverty, health, education, and gender equality. The telecentre was the archetype for this period, stretching from the mid/late-1990s to the mid/late-2000s. This period, Heeks suggests, led to specific lessons and watchwords: sustainability, scalability, and evaluation (objective evaluation of impacts).

If, as Heeks explains, ICT4D 1.0 took an "invention-down" approach - bringing new technologies into development contexts - ICT4D 2.0 is characterised by a shift to a more "use-up" approach of understanding how existing technologies are being applied within economically poor communities. This would mean: less emphasis on what might be used (the internet and personal computers, or PCs) and more emphasis on what is actually used (mobile devices, radio, and television); less emphasis on fundamental technical innovation and more emphasis on application and business model innovation; and less emphasis on piloting and sustaining new applications and more emphasis on assessing and scaling existing applications. What this means is the reinterpretation of "ICTs" to incorporate radio and television. In addition, "convergence" - looking at the technologies that already penetrate (mobile, radio, television) and seeking ways to add computing and internet functionality - will play a role in ICT4D 2.0. There will also be an emphasis on specific data relevance, meaning a greater focus on interactivity and localised content that allows community input. Heeks cites, for instance, the growth of participatory video - the creation of video content by the local community and its presentation at individual screenings for community groups. He says that "[w]e are also likely to see more content creation with an external purpose. This means use of locally-created data to raise awareness, action or funds from external groups as organisations like Kiva and Treatment Action Campaign currently do." While, as Heeks points out, the sense of empowerment and inclusion that come from content creation is valuable, a priority for ICT4D 2.0 will be conceiving new applications and new business models that can use the growing ICT base - of mobiles, for example - to create employment.

After this analysis of the implications of the phase change in terms of new technology and application priorities, Heeks looks at what the shift means in relation to new models of innovation developed for economically poor communities: from "laboratory" innovation (that done outside of the communities but on their behalf) to "collaborative" innovation (that done working alongside the communities) to "grassroots" innovation (innovation by and within the communities - in the sense of adapting and applying the technology in new ways). An example of the latter would be new processes such as beeping (or flashing) that allows a mobile phone message to be communicated without the call being completed.

Next, Heeks explores what ICT4D 2.0 will mean for new implementation models for funding, managing, and applying digital technology. For instance, he looks at the shift from a "blueprint" approach like that characteristic of ICT4D 1.0 (e.g., project designs that draw solely from the understanding of designers rather than users) to a "process" approach to ICT4D projects that involves participation of beneficiaries in the design and/or construction of the ICT4D project, flexibility and improvisation in the implementation of the ICT4D project, utilising and building local capacities, and so on. (Figure 3 on page 20 of the document shows "Good Practice for ICT4D 2.0 Implementation")

Finally, the paper looks at new worldviews to guide thinking and policies in this field, integrating perspectives from 3 domains: computer science, information systems, and development studies. From this analysis, Heeks concludes that "we therefore need to develop or find ICT4D champions who are 'tribrids'....Vocational training will no doubt help..." In addition to project-level tribrids, Heeks argues that ICT4D 2.0 will require a focus on policy- and programme-level tribrids. This will mean pulling a plan of action from an amalgam of the key questions each domain can answer: What is possible with digital technology? (from computer science); what is feasible with digital technology? (from information systems); and what is desirable with digital technology? (from development studies).

"In conclusion and above all, we can see that ICT4D 2.0 is about reframing the poor. Where ICT4D 1.0 marginalised them, allowing a supply-driven focus, ICT4D 2.0 centralises them, creating a demand-driven focus. Where ICT4D 1.0 - fortified by the 'bottom of the pyramid' concept - characterised them largely as passive consumers, ICT4D 2.0 sees the poor as active producers and active innovators. Three overarching questions for this next phase therefore emerge. How can the poor be producers of digital content and services? How can they create new incomes and jobs through ICTs? And how can we recognise and scale the ICT-based innovations they produce?"