ICTs and Poverty:

A Review of the Literature

By Catherine Nyaki Adeya, Ph.D

Two important issues emerge in this literature review on ICTs and poverty. They are the conceptual senses of ICTs and poverty and the linkage, if any, between ICTs and development.  Related to these issues is the problematic argument of whether ICTs create a digital divide of an increasingly broader nature between the developed and developing nations. If this indeed is the case, then issues of social exclusion and inclusion created by ICTs are bound to affect relations within and between nations. 

By definition, ICTs include electronic networks – embodying complex hardware and software –  linked by a vast array of technical protocols (Mansell and Silverstone, 1996). ICTs are embedded in networks and services that affect the local and global accumulation and flows of public and private knowledge. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, ICTs cover Internet service provision, telecommunications equipment and services, information technology equipment and services, media and broadcasting, libraries and documentation centres, commercial information providers, network-based information services, and other related information and communication activities. It is not uncommon to find definitions of ICTs that are synonymous with those of information technology (IT). For example, Foster defines IT as 'the group of technologies that is revolutionizing the handling of information' and embodies a convergence of interest between electronics, computing and communication (Drew and Foster, 1994). Duncombe and Heeks (1999) simplify the definition by describing ICTs as an “electronic means of capturing, processing, storing and disseminating information”.

Poverty is a frequently used word with different senses, some of which are technical. Absolute poverty refers to subsistence below the minimum and socially acceptable living conditions while relative poverty compares the lowest bracket of a population with the upper bracket. Most development practitioners focus on reducing absolute poverty because of the urgency associated with starvation, malnutrition and other afflictions. Yet, relative poverty is not an exogenous factor in the fight against absolute poverty. Thus, most rights-based approaches focus on relative poverty because they do not want to acknowledge the existence of what can be described as first-and second-class citizens.

These conceptual considerations make it possible to suggest that the term ICTs should be transformed into the three separate entities of information, communication, and technologies. The move has demands that are evident in some of the literature in the review. In this regard, until people on the ground are educated on the differences between the three, there will always be publications that discuss them in an overlapping manner or that refer to ICTs when in fact their focus is an area such as the telephone in relation to communication. 

The core of the review remains however, an analytical assessment of the nature of the relationship between ICTs and poverty. This relationship is not clear-cut. Most arguments related to poverty focus as an example on insufficient nutrition and inadequate shelter. It is only recently that some have started to argue that lack of access to information and communications technologies is an element of poverty. This contention is not comparable to traditional discussions of poverty issues (Kenny, 2001), although it is recognised that ICTs have the potential of assuming a crucial role in poverty alleviation efforts.

The potential is reflected in Pigato’s (2001) paper that examined the relationship between ICTs and poverty on the basis of empirical evidence drawn from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia. Two objectives of the paper were first to examine the patterns of utilization, ownership and affordability of ICTs within countries in SSA and South Asia. The second was to suggest ways through which information and ICTs can best be used in poverty alleviation strategies. The paper advocates the need for an integrated framework to develop appropriate policies of access and diffusion of ICTs within developing countries. Available evidence shows however that technology is not a goal in itself, but a means for achieving development goals.

Schon et al. (1999) argue that poverty is not simply lack of adequate income. Thus, the poor, even if provided with access to information technologies (IT) are unlikely to transform themselves from consumers to producers of knowledge because IT reinforces for them the idea that machines know more than they do. There is a general consensus in the literature on why the poor cannot reap the benefits of ICTs. Reasons include the problems of access, high costs or lack of funding and low human skills. Many blame governments and this in itself is a problem. Dependence on the government and donors is a major problem in the development process and is not the only solution in efforts aimed at alleviating poverty.  There has to be political will to achieve some of these developments. Otherwise, some policymakers will constantly say the government lacks the resources. Sometimes, the answers lie in other strategies that are not dependent on government support. These include self-sustainability after a period of time. As for the issue of the connection between ICTs and development, Butcher (1998) suggests that the repetition of rhetorical statements on the developmental potential of ICTs has started to ring hollow, raising more questions than answers.

From the review, it is evident that a lot has been written on telecentres as a potential solution to the problem of access to ICTs for those in rural areas. An excellent initiative that could be replicated in other developing countries is the structure and running methods of the AMIC@s in Paraguay. The initiative was set up in such a way that there was ‘life’ beyond donor funding, which is a desirable goal for many in developing countries.   The review also illustrates the need for policymakers and donors to embark on more rigorous analyses of the cultural dimensions of ICTs as a basis for designing appropriate policies for the world’s poor. In addition, there is also the need for more discourse between projects despite their sponsorship background because donors do not seem to be ‘talking’ to each other.

It is also clear from the review that the impact of ICTs depends on users’ attitudes and expectations and that it should be analysed through generalized and expanded use of qualitative and quantitative techniques.

Wresch (1996), posed the question of whether the “poor (are) still excluded from much of the world’s information.” Clearly the answer to this question has to be in the affirmative. By way of comparison, as a reaction to his 1996 assertion that “no one has even begun to outline a solution to the problem”, the conclusion to be reached on the basis of the evidence in this literature review is that many are in fact trying to address this problem, with some measure of success.

To Top 

Webmaster: Editorial Assignments: Vaal Cybercentre, South Africa.

Copyright © 2002-3 Acacia
Last modified: 07/29/03