Evaluating Donor-Funded ICT Projects : How Significant is Western-Centrism?

(1)

Evaluating donor-funded ICT projects

How significant is Western-centrism?

Zivile Necejauskaite

Malmö University

Communication for Development Two-year master

Degree project HT20: 15 Credits Supervisor: Erliza Lopez Pedersen Spring 2021

(2)

1. Abstract

Donor-funded economic and development assistance for various countries and regions has been steadily increasing in the last half-century. According to the World Bank, the funding amount provided by this organisation has increased more than 40 times from 4.6 billion USD to 166 billion USD in a 58-year span (World Bank, 2018). The notion of development, which came to spotlight after the WWII, has been greatly debated with a lot of academics and theorists linking it to dependency and superiority of one over another.

Since the beginning of the ICT revolution from around 1980s, technologies have become tools and enablers for new opportunities (Forester, 1987). However, with the great benefits, came significant risks, such as data and information misuse, data protection or cybersecurity. Still the ICT related development projects are often portrayed as silver bullets which can resolve matters such as inequality, access to education or poor living conditions. Funding organisations are putting digitalisation at the forefront of their agenda and communicate the change and positive impact they bring. However, the evaluation mechanisms used by those bodies raise the question of suitability as they are very much based on benchmarking against the Western standards of success or failure.

This essay is aiming to investigate how significant is Western-centric worldview when it comes to measuring donor funded or co-funded ICT projects, be it in a form of a grant or a loan, as well as what role the terms impact and outcome play when communicating the results. It is also intending to analyse how the ICTs have been changing the notion of development and what conclusions can be drawn.

(3)

2. Glossary

CERT – Computer Emergency Response Team CII – Critical Information Infrastructure CIRT – Cyber Incident Response Team CSIRT – Computer Incident Response Team C4D – Communication for Development DoI – Diffusion of Innovation

ICT – Information Communication Technology

ICT4D – Information Communication Technology for Development IDA – International Development Association

ITU – International Telecommunications Union KPI – Key Performance Indicator

NGO – Non-governmental organisation TAM – Technology Acceptance Model ToC – Theory of Change

ODA – Official Development Assistance UN – United Nations

(5)

3. Introduction

ICTs are at the forefront on the development agendas of many donor organisations, nations and even unions. According to Bada & Madon (2006), discussing information technologies and development has now become a regular feature in global policy meetings, with events such as World Summit on the Information Society and World Information Technology Forum attracting large audiences. Technologies are considered important for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, introduced by the UN to fight poverty, improve healthcare, provide better education, foster gender equality, and extend global partnerships for development in developing countries (World Bank, 2003). Also, as more and more people have access to the Internet, ICTs are said to bring efficiency and effectiveness to many areas of public administration. With better interconnected world, people can have faster and more reliable access to various services and products. Hence, more and more donor-funded or co-funded projects have been incorporating ICTs (USAID, 2020).

However, as stated by Heeks & Alemayeho (2008, as cited in Thapa & Sabo, 2014), despite the huge investment each year by NGOs as well as public and private sector organisations in ICT development projects, only minor impact on local communities has been identified. The rather disappointing results are explained by various factors - the lack of political will, motivation, and knowledge on how to evaluate the impact of ongoing and initiated projects. Thapa & Sabo (2014), in their literature review on linking ICT and development, stated that this has only been confirmed by researchers who, after investigating or analysing numerous projects involving ICT innovation in developing countries, claimed many to have failed achieving the anticipated benefits. Some of the factors identified were poor management, resistance to change, and complex power structures. Moreover, academics, like Waage (2010, as cited in Heeks, 2010) or Zheng et. al (2018), believe that ICTs are no silver bullets, but rather tools and the true intentions of the development interventions is what really matters.

Neoliberalism is said to be the dominant development model today with great emphasis on Western values such as economic gains and immediate effects (Zheng et al., 2018). Great emphasis is placed on sharing the positive effects of interventions, especially by the use of popular words to convey messages and make them more

(6)

noteworthy. Cornwall (2007) called such words development buzzwords as they seem to be appealing, bombastic and vogue, especially in the Western world. Thus, the purpose of this essay is to investigate how significant is the Western worldview when measuring and communicating the results of the ICT related development projects. The particular questions which will be explored in this essay are as follows:

1. How the evaluation methods, which are currently practiced by the multilateral donor agencies for assessing ICT development projects, are influenced by the Western-centric approach?

2. How significant is the use of the terms impact and outcome to describe the results of ICT related development projects?

The essay is organised in sections where the first part provides a review of how the academics see ICT development interventions and their evaluation mechanisms and how ICT4D literature has progressed over time. While the aim of this paper is to debate the current situation, the review of chronological development of ICT4D will provide insights on the influences that shaped this field. The second part gives a review of multilateral donor agencies and the project evaluation mechanisms they propose and use in practice as well as result communication praxis. The section also provides two case studies of ICT projects co-financed by the donor organisations in Cyprus and Bangladesh. The case studies are based on surveys and follow-up interviews with the staff from the recipient organisations.

I believe my reader is rather curious why I decided to examine this topic and how I am related to it. Development interventions first drew my attention whilst travelling independently around the world for 11 months in 2014. During the trip I mainly visited developing countries, chose to travel by the means of local transport as well as spent most of my time staying with and talking to the locals. Listening to their stories and perspectives on the funded development interventions sprung my curiosity about who is the real beneficiary of such projects and how and by whom the need for them is recognized and justified.

(7)

company is based in Lithuania, a country which used to be part of USSR block and during its 30 years of independence aimed to move from Russia’s political and economic influence towards more Western capitalistic approach. However, the projects usually take place in developing countries. Although I have worked on quite a few of the assignments, I have never seen any evaluation process going on by the donor agencies or independent organisations. We have mainly been encouraged to carry out the evaluations ourselves and share the results and insights with the funding body. Yet, the communication of those agencies highlighted the positive results the development interventions bring. Roztocki and Weistroffer (2016) suggested that measuring the impact of development is often a complex issue, as positive development, such as an increased industrial base, may often be accompanied by negative side effects, such as pollution and worsened dietary habits. However, this does not seem to be visible in the messages communicated by donor agencies. Hence, it encouraged me to examine who and how is really evaluating the ICT related development projects and what measurement criteria is used to do so.

For the benefit of my reader, I have to acknowledge that I am a white female, who has earned her bachelor’s degree in the UK and is currently residing in Lithuania. It is also worth mentioning that although the case study countries have been selected to be very different, they both relate to cybersecurity field, which may just partly represent the ICT area. Also, both case studies are based on the answers from the staff of sole organisation and the responses from stakeholders from other related bodies would no doubt have enriched the essay. Similarly, the analysis of more donor organisations would have provided a broader perspective. Nonetheless, I hope that this essay encourages further debate on evaluating the ever-growing importance of ICT sector for development assistance.

3.1 Relevance to Communication for Development

According to Manyozo (2012), as the notion of development has been changing and evolving, so has the approach towards related communication. The author argued that the relationship between development and communication is ‘coloured’ more by how we define development, which plays a greater role in the tandem.

(8)

The terms aid and support seem to be dominating the development agenda nowadays as in recent decades the role and involvement of international development agencies has been steadily growing. Wilkins et al. (2014) illustrated this by saying that donor agencies have started acting as the primary funders of communication for

development and social change projects and programs. Furthermore, Enghel and Noske-Turner (2018) pointed out that C4D can even be a powerful tool that donors use strategically in order to support their intervention in recipient countries in the quest for social change. Furthermore, Manyozo (2017, as cited in Obregon & Tufte, 2017), stated that their notion of development remains embedded in the Western neoliberal development paradigm, which has received criticism for its ethnocentric approach and negative social consequences.

However, Tufte (2017) highlighted the need for reconsideration of the relationship among governments, civil society organisations and international development agencies alike and their constituencies. The participation, inclusion and perspective of the latter is imbalanced as the communication in many cases is done on their behalf. It is not only the speaker and means of communication that matter, but also the language, phrases and emphasised elements that formulate images and opinions. Steels (2016) suggested that it is important who and how often use particular terms and textual constructions – if they tend to be reused in particular context often, they gain popularity and certain attributions.

(9)

4. Literature Review

4.1 The relation of development theory and ICTs

The concept of development came into spotlight after the end of WWII, when the US president Harry S. Truman introduced the idea of prosperity in the West by ‘stimulating’ economic development in the emerging countries (Esteva et al., 2013). Truman's imperative to develop meant that societies of the developing world were no longer seen as diverse and incomparable but were rather placed on one agenda for advancement according to the criteria of the Western industrial standards. Around that period, the academics, often with economic background and coming from Western societies, such as Walt Whitman Rostow, advocated the idea of

one-size-fits-all and step-by-step models for economic growth. The key proposition was that

development happens solely through economic gains and these can be achieved through growing and maturing markets and consumption by applying the techniques which worked in countries like the UK, the USA, and Germany (Rostow, 1959). Technology was initially seen as important for exploring new territories, to extend colonization, and to exploit natural resources. Moreover, the role of technology was to boost industrialisation and mass production, suggesting that the innovation of new technologies will infuse the economic growth (Thapa & Sabo, 2014). However, it did not take long for scholars from those developing nations to challenge such approach and provide an inside perspective of how such models are ignoring the concept of freedom to choose the course of living according to the context and environmental factors of the country (Ferraro, 2008). Thus, this perspective brought to light the voice of the beneficiaries of the development support, suggesting that they also had an opinion in the development process.

From the 1960s development has taken a new form – donor agencies have become active in solving development issues such as poverty, inequality, hunger, etc. According to the World Bank, the funding amount provided by the organisation has increased more than 40 times from 4.6 billion USD to 166 billion USD in a 58-year span (see

(10)

Figure 1, Net official development assistance and official aid received (USD)

At the end of 1980s, the technologies were not only intended for development and advancement processes, but also as enablers for people all around the world to be interconnected and more knowledgeable about what is happening elsewhere.

Sein & Harindranath (2004, as cited in Thapa & Sabo, 2014) stated that the emergence of the Internet and ICT-based services in the 1990s made the view towards technology even more holistic as technology could be seen as a central force in the discourse on economic and social development. Moreover, Heeks (2002) suggested that the new technology acted as a ’game changer’ as it amended the perspective of competition and access to know-how and information.

From the 2000s philanthropic movements have started sprawling the idea that ordinary citizens can become part of the development process with celebrities promoting white-man-as-saviour concept. As ICTs have been introduced to many areas of the Western societies, the funding for ICT projects in the emerging countries started to skyrocket too. However, the understanding of the real impact of ICTs has been limited and as Dé et al. (2018) pointed out, the development theory has not evolved in line with the spread and growing importance of the ICTs in the development process. Hence, the authors advocate for reconsideration of the development notion in light of

(11)

At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, ICT4D researchers have started promoting the idea that ICTs are no silver bullets providing simple and linear solutions to complex and wicked social problems (Zheng et al., 2018). Some academics proposed that there is a great deal of reflexivity within the ICT4D, meaning that ICTs are just tools and aid in facilitating the process of development, they themselves are not the cure for development (Mthoko & Khene, 2018). In fact, Toyama (2011) argued that many ICT4D initiatives have failed to produce positive results as emphasis has often been placed on the technology itself and its adaption, rather than on understanding the relationship between ICTs and how they are affecting the society they are introduced to. On a similar note, the increased access to ICTs did not guarantee meaningful use of them and subsequent meaningful impacts. In fact, ICTs may even intensify inequality, often coming with high investments of resources and time (Heeks, 2006, as cited in Mthoko & Khene, 2018). Heeks (2002) proposed that views towards new technology in development have always balanced between social and technological determinism, with the former emphasising the role of people and the latter placing ICTs at the centre-stage. He proposed the approach to ICTs to be information-centred, integral to its environment, and integrated with development objectives.

The role of context when applying ICTs has been more and more debated amongst ICT4D academics. Roztocki and Weistroffer (2016) proposed that successful application of ICTs should always be part of the bigger picture and align with the existing business and regulatory environment. Factors, such as business culture and government policies, may encourage or hinder the success or failure of technological interventions. Furthermore, Zheng et la. (2018) indicated that decades of ICT4D research suggest that for a technology intervention to produce substantial and sustainable impact, it must be embedded in a long-term development process.

4.2 Development theory in ICT4D literature

There are diverse views on what development has been, and what it should be considered nowadays. Thapa and Sabo (2014) suggested that the existing development theories had been extended largely into 3 categories: state-led (modernisation and dependency), market-led (neoliberalism), and society-led (alternative) theories.

(12)

Likewise, Dé et al. (2018) stated that most ICT4D researchers base their understanding of development on these three categories. An example of each discourse is described below.

A notable theory portraying development as a way to create dependency was proposed by a major figure in the post-development academic discourse Arturo Escobar in 1995. He saw development as a construction of the post-World War II era, where rich countries continued their colonial aspirations by exploiting various areas for resources, labour, and markets. The theory assumes that the word development is only used to mask what he calls a colonized reality where entire nations began to see themselves as under-developed, and allowed interventions by foreign bodies, multi-lateral agencies, and experts, thus subjecting their societies to massive social engineering. The assertion suggested that there is a lot of aspects of what can be called Western-centrism in development, i.e., benchmarking the developing countries against Western standards, with the result that the developing world always appeared backward and perpetuated superiority of the West. Also, the growing influence of development through funding, supporting, and assisting have led to social and political changes of a massive scale (Escobar, cited in Dé et al, 2018). According to Zheng et al. (2018), early ICT4D research tends to implicitly follow the prevailing development perspective of modernisation, which often implies the imposition of a development model that fosters globalisation and economic liberalisation. However, some development theorists have challenged Escobar’s views, and the post-development school overall, by pointing out that they do not provide an alternative to development choosing instead to only critique the idea of development (Pieterse, 2000, as cited in Dé et al, 2018).

Another view, promoted by Coimbatore Krishnarao Prahalad (2004), challenged the consideration of the poor as victims and a burden to society and rather saw development as the way to enable the developing countries to participate in global markets of production and consumption and improve their economic situation as well as the standard of living. Such approach has close ties to neoliberalism, which is said to be guiding the life as well as social and political structures in the Global North

(13)

However, Prahalad’s proposition has received quite a lot of reproval amongst development academics with Aneel Karnani being the harshest critic. In his article ‘Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage’, published in 2007, Karnani challenges Prahalad’s theory by stating that selling to the poor will not eliminate poverty but would rather work as an exploitation of the little resources they have. He also suggests that the only way to alleviate poverty is to raise the real income of the poor by making them producers according to their environmental capabilities and skillset (Karnani, 2007). However, this approach also suggests including the developing nations in the global trade. Back in 1998, Castells highlighted that the integration within the global networks of capital, production, trade, and communication, increasingly mediated by the ICTs, is often done either involuntarily or according to certain standards, promoted in the Global North (Castells, 1998).

A third view, put forward by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen in 2000, argued for development that enhanced the capabilities and freedoms of individuals so that they were able to do what they wanted to do, and thereby achieve overall societal development. The so-called Capability Approach (CA) suggests that impact evaluation should focus on the people’s capabilities to do and to be, on the quality of human life, and on the potential decrease in the obstacles in people’s lives, to maximize everyone’s freedom to live and choose the kind of life that they have reason to value. While the proposition brings the perspective of people element and moves away from macro factors, it may be ignoring the increasing role of global interconnectedness and geopolitical influences. These factors are especially significant in the ICT area.

The theories are not necessarily seen as contrasting by the academics. For example, Avgerou (2010), proposed that there could be four discourses on ICT innovation and development in the ICT4D literature. The author suggests that overall development and ICT innovation is seen as balancing between socio-economic growth and widening the gap of the digital divide and between the transfer of knowledge and socially embedded innovation. The author makes an important highlight that there is no one clear view on the relationship between the beneficiaries of the development interventions and the ones who provide funds and/or resources.

(14)

Four discourses on IS innovation and development by Avgerou (2010)

While ICT4D researchers differ on their approaches towards development, most agree that it should be considered as an ever-evolving phenomena (Thapa & Sabo, 2014). Besides, most of them concur that the notion of development has been gradually changing with the emerging influence of the ICTs (Pieterse 2000, as cited in Dé et al, 2018). Development may take place in the areas that may not be considered underdeveloped by the Western standards and this phenomenon will be explored later in the essay.

4.3 How ICT4D research shifted focus over time

Zheng et al. (2018), who in 2018 conducted a review of ICT4D research literature which has been published up until that point, concluded that to explore the evaluation of the changes brought by technologies, many early ICT4D academics seemed to promote using either Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) or Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) model. Both methods explore the readiness of the target population to accept the technological innovation, although do so from different perspectives:

(15)

• TAM, introduced by Fred Davis in 1986, suggests that when introduced with a new technology, users are affected by many factors which determine how and when they will use it.

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Davis 1989

• DoI, developed by Everett Rogers in 1962, proposes that all users can be divided into segments which start using the technology at different stages.

Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) model, Rogers 1962

However, the application of the models encouraged focusing on ICT adoption and use rather than on changes, benefits, and spill over effects. Zheng et al. (2018) stated that with the focus on technology acceptance, early ICT4D research tends to utterly follow the prevailing development perspective of the Western countries worshiping modernisation which often promotes globalisation and economic freedom. Moreover, Xiao et al. (2013) stressed that it is vital to consider that both models were originally developed in the Western countries and may not have relevance when exposed to the developing country context. On a different note, Lwoga and Sangeda (2018) suggested that research on needs and impact of ICT projects has been scarce, while research on application design and adoption has been well conceptualized.

According to Mthoko and Khene (2018), later researchers proposed ICTs to be just tools and the success or failure of adopting them highly depend on the environmental circumstances. The application of Amartia Sen’s CA theory by some researchers in the

(16)

early 2000s followed social determinism notion and drew the centre of attention from technology to the people it is being proposed to and their choice to either be part of the intervention or not. As the model advocates the potential decrease in the obstacles in people’s lives to maximise everyone’s freedom to live and to choose the kind of life that they have a reason to value, it gave emphasis to how the user’s personal traits as well as environment affects the participation in ICT intervention. However, Mthoko and Khene (2018) pointed out that with the fast-paced environment and interconnectedness within the world, the theory started to have some pitfalls. It is not considering that in many cases people may have little choice. This is very evident with the technology which is applied at the national level and brings transformation in providing public services. Furthermore, society and community reaction to the technological intervention plays a significant role in shaping the expectations for our own well-being. Also, the model neglects the role of neoliberalism and its consequences which arguably may be the dominant development model in the world today (Zheng et al., 2018). Thus, global influences, power structures and other related macro factors, which in the ICT context play a significant role, are not properly acknowledged.

4.4 Focus on the positive side

Avgerou (2010) was one of the first scholars to propose that ICT4D research has been based on the belief that the ICTs have, potentially, the capacity to contribute towards the improvement of various aspects of life, from alleviating poverty to strengthening the democratic polity. She also suggested that this approach almost dictates how the ICTs are portrayed by the researchers, i.e., by only bringing positive results. Hence, it was vital to ’turn a critical eye’ on desirable development effects and analyse the impact on socio-economic context and to question how actions of ICT innovation contribute to life improvements in developing countries. Likewise, Walsham and Sahay (2006) overtly pointed to the role and value of critical research for the domain of ICT4D. The authors also encouraged to consider the context as the developing countries are normally deeply intertwined with the issues of power, politics, donor dependencies, institutional arrangements, and inequities of all sorts.

(17)

4.5 Recent ICT4D research and future prospects

With the introduction of the Millennium Development Goals, the focus of the ICT4D research started to change to a more holistic view of development beyond economic growth. Recently, a few researchers have proposed theories and concepts that are still using some aspects of TAM, DoI and/or CA, but incorporate other elements, such as short-, medium-, and long-term effects on society, economy, sustainability, etc. as well as explore the notion of development. For example, ICT4D research framework, proposed by Zheng et al. in 2018, seeks to capture all key components of ICT4D in a schema which serves as a conceptual map. The authors claim that by incorporating a conceptualisation of development and IT artifact, the rigor of ICT4D research can be greatly improved. The authors state:

“The point is not to prescribe particular conceptions of development, IT artifact or ToC, but to provide a scaffolding for discussions and reflections of these elements in ICT4D research.” (Zheng et al., 2018, p. 8)

Key conceptual components of ICT4D research proposed by Zheng et al., 2018

The proposed framework makes a great step forward in ICT4D research as it encourages the departure from achieving a designated level of technology adoption or diffusion and rather focuses on multifaceted, dynamic, and contentious socio-technical processes. Also, it acknowledges that ICT4D may give rise to unintended consequences

(18)

and contradictory effects on development as it is not a linear progress and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

However, as Avgerou (2010) highlighted, ICT4D studies and models lack the analysis of the context where the change is intended to happen. Environmental factors, such as political actors and institutions through which economic models and technological potential are translated into industries, information infrastructures, and ‘empowered’ societies, play a significant role. Furthermore, it is vital to engage with the ongoing scholarly debates on the articulation of local political economies with global political and economic trends. In recent years, scholars analysing ICT4D research were pointing out to context of the environment the development is taking place. Dé et al. (2018) in their review of ICT4D research suggested that since many developing countries happen to be colonial states, this fact should be thoroughly considered. Being a post-colonial country often implies that there are certain dominant views that determine policies about development and the use of ICT.

Also, the authors state that the local history of the region or location where the ICT project was implemented matters as it has had a direct effect on social or political conditions and occurrences of social or political conflict, with a focus on the way they influence ICT design and use. Power and influence should be analysed in greater detail as many developing countries engage in ICT4D projects through policy advice from multi-lateral funding institutions such as the World Bank Group, the UN, etc., collectively called the Washington Consensus. The authors further continue by encouraging researchers to analyse the notion of development and how using ICTs as tools for it have led to social and political changes on massive scale as well as addressing the needs of different cultures where technology is imposed with its own ‘logic’, ensuring adaptation to local conditions. Hence, there is a need for newer, and more relevant theory building which will better suit researchers who are examining phenomena in complex, non-Western domains and enabling transformation in these situations.

(19)

looking perspective. While the statement has been made a while back, it still holds some truth nowadays - the evaluation of the ICT projects rarely considers the grey areas of technology. As Zheng et al. (2018, p. 10), pointed out:

“The ICT4D field needs to pay more attention to the ‘dark side’ of ICT4D. For example, ICTs are often used for surveillance and control and big data, cloud computing and smart city applications will further enhance such capacity not only by authorities but also commercial players.”

As things such as data storage and ownership, lack of skilled personnel and lack of local capabilities to benefit from the technologies become more and more apparent, the identification of grey areas and debate of potential consequences become vital.

4.6 Evaluation of ICT4D projects

ICT4D research inevitably considers the assessment of changes the intervention has brought. According to Andersson et al. (2012), early ICT4D researchers promoted evaluation of ICT projects with hard measures, such as percentages of the population who have started using the technology or economic aspects, such as GDP. However, recently, a general trend has been to challenge the mainstream neoliberal development discourse and most ICT4D researchers today are moving away from traditional theories of development and contest the measuring of development solely in economic terms.

Still, in many cases, ICT4D impact assessments are based on the before and after situation of a project (Heeks & Molla, 2009). Mthoko and Khene (2018) highlighted the need to address social impact and pointed to the tendency of using simple tools and checklists of assessing it. Often such approach causes manipulation to obtain particular results, or to suit selected stakeholder groups. Consequently, project implementers and governments prefer to justify development projects with these simple tools and checklists. These are easy to communicate and justify that development is indeed taking place and bringing changes.

Moreover, such narrow approaches appear to endorse predetermined outcomes of policies and projects (Howitt, 2011, as cited in Mthoko & Khene 2018). Furthermore, Rodriguez et al. (2010) argued that even in cases where ICTs are found to be useful, it

(20)

remains unclear which aspects of ICT4D are effective, how they can be improved, and how these projects can be sustained. Evaluators should assess whether there are mechanisms in place that will support and ensure that positive outputs, outcomes, and impacts are sustainable and not short-lived.

While there have been a number of models and frameworks proposed by the ICT4D scholars for evaluating the ICT related initiatives, one recent attempt by Mthoko and Khene (2018) aimed at eliminating the limitations of the previous propositions. The authors proposed that ICT projects should be assessed from a holistic perspective: reflecting the broad effects of an ICT program on a community and the wider society and understanding of the effects of ICTs in terms of development. Outcome and

impact should be treated differently as, according to Mthoko and Khene (2018):

• Outcomes are based on the immediate costs and benefits of the ICT4D project (economic, direct, intended, positive, short-term, subjective). • Impact is based on the contribution the project makes toward

development goals (social impacts, negative, long-term, indirect, unintended, objective measures).

Outcome and impact assessment framework for Rural ICT4D proposed by Mthoko and Khene, 2018

(21)

base their understanding of development on Sen’s CA and state that in order to evaluate the effects of ICT4D toward the empowerment of people, one needs to understand how information and knowledge enhances individual and collective capabilities to achieve improved economic, social and political opportunities, and therefore, a better lifestyle (Mthoko & Khene, 2018). The model is intended for rural projects but can easily be applicable for evaluating other ICT4D initiatives. However, while the model is a step forward by considering outcome and impact separation as well as performing the analysis through different lenses, it is still lacking consideration of the context the technology intervention is taking place.

Referring to Foucault (1997, as cited in Hayes & Westrup, 2012), the representation of context is an important element in framing how the situation is to be viewed and what matters. The identification of a relevant context is about persuasion and the exercise of power relations in which certain issues are presented as important while others remain invisible. According to Hayes and Westrup (2012), context is a dynamic concept which is produced, but is not an entity ‘out there’ waiting to be represented, hence it is important to understand how it is formulated. This in turn has important consequences for building methodology and performing analysis of changes the ICTs bring. Most developing countries are also post-colonial countries, and this legacy has a strong bearing on their political, social and economic conditions. Escobar reasoned that it is the post-colonial states that have been at the forefront of the development agenda of the West (Dé et al., 2018). On a similar notion, Lin et al. (2015) stated that being a post-colonial state implies that there are certain dominant views that determine policies about development and the use of ICT. However, most recent research is following a call made by Avgerou and Walsham (2010, as cited in Hayes & Westrup, 2012) to pay less attention to the past and rather consider ICTs in the contexts in which they are embedded nowadays - organisational, national, or international.

The notion of development has been changing throughout time, especially with the ICTs playing a bigger role in it. Currently many scholars stand by the position that Western values are evident in planning, implementation, and evaluation of ICT related development initiatives. With a great focus on the analysis of before and after

(22)

situations, it becomes easier and quicker to showcase the results. Thus, more holistic evaluation models have been proposed. Also, recently ICT4D scholars started to place a great deal of importance on context as it becomes increasingly more important in the interconnected world and state that currently proposed frameworks for project evaluation lack this perspective. However, as I have witnessed in practice, the evaluation methods used by the organisations which provide development assistance are very different from what the academics are proposing.

(23)

5. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

5.1 Western-centrism

The literature review suggests that although there is no unified approach towards development, many academics link it to one group’s superiority over another. Different theorists refer to that superiority in the context of development from diverse perspectives – early researchers, such as Escobar (1995), saw development nothing else than a post-colonial project, while later academics, such as Dé et al. (2018), highlighted the disproportionate relationship in a form of Washington Consensus when a handful of nations and organisations claim to have the know-how and the resources to alleviate poverty, reducing inequality, and solving other worldwide matters.

Sociologist William Graham Sumner (1906, as cited in Hooghe, 2008) called

ethnocentrism a worldview expressing the belief that one’s own ethnic group or one’s

own culture is superior to other ethnic groups or cultures, and that one’s cultural standards are somehow greater. According to Hobson (2012), the worldview, which centres around Western values and ways of living and its origins can be traced to the European countries engaging in an imperial civilizing missions, is called

Western-centrism. It is often referred to as Eurocentrism, however, historian Jeffrey

Wasserstrom (2001) stated that the latter term could potentially confuse as sometimes it is unclear where exactly the United States fits, while it plays a major role in shaping the norms and agenda of what is called the West nowadays.

As noted earlier, ICT4D scholars, such as Zheng et al. (2018), proposed neoliberalism to be the dominant development model today with great emphasis on Western values such as economic gains and immediate results. The latter approach also proposes that global development is seen through a certain lens with a great focus on market and consumer-oriented attitudes and qualities with great resemblance to neoliberal values. Brown (2016) highlighted, that neoliberalism casts the political and social spheres both as appropriately dominated by market concerns and as themselves organised by market rationality. Neoliberal political rationality produces governance norms along the same lines, that is, criteria of productivity and profitability and as a result

(24)

governance talk increasingly becomes like market talk. Hence, it has a tremendous effect on how resource allocation is done and how the results are portrayed.

The role taken by the donor organisations, most of which have origins in the Global North, have been emphasizing the gap between the advanced and under-developed, portraying themselves as saviours and bringers of the world peace. Thompson (2004) in his publication ‘Discourse, Development & the Digital Divide: ICT & the World Bank’, noted that in their communication the top management of such organisations establish the institution as almost synonymous with the term development, and fundamental to the future of our world. Moreover, McEwan (2019) stated that the donor organisations are tools for setting up certain conditions for receiving funding and other support and regulating global resource distribution. She also pointed out that most of them are manged by people who have been delegated to ‘look after the colonies’ during the colonial times. Many of them have worked with a mindset of colonisation as development and advancement for the ‘backward people’ and still poses a certain viewpoint.

Avgerou (2010) argued that many donor organisations base the need for new technology introduction on the assumption that countries or regions which do not have access to internet-based services are ‘excluded’ not only from global economic opportunities, but also from modern society’s information channels for education, health, and democratic participation. Moreover, Cameron et al. (2016) in their study on impact evaluation publications across the globe found that a significant proportion of the evaluation authors were from countries in North America and Western Europe. Also, many of the authors, despite their origin, were with institutional affiliations from the West.

Using market and number-led evaluation criteria, donor organisations highlight the success of technology interventions in various regions around the world. Yet the academics argue that many ICT4D initiatives have failed to produce positive results as emphasis is often placed on the technology itself rather than on understanding the relationship between the ICTs and the development process (Heeks, 2002). Similarly,

(25)

as they push ‘technical assistance’ on recipient governments through consultants and training workshops which, ironically, often assume relatively large parts of the funded budget. Moreover, such assistance is most often based on ‘best practices’ which also tend to originate from the West, suggesting that praxis from the Global North is seen as finer.

Shringarpure (2018) examined the phenomenon of digital humanitarianism, stating that while digital communication technologies and tools enable people to be more interconnected and part-take in various initiatives around the world, they also make an illusion that all world’s problems can be solved with just one click. The author argues that the concept is very typical for the citizens of the Global North, where various aid programs are distorting the reality by inviting to save the developing world and creating victim and saviour relationship, hence, someone with superiority over another.

This benchmarking and distorted representation creates othering - labelling and defining a group of people as subaltern natives with less knowledge, power, capabilities, and ambitions. According to McEwan (2019), the term othering gained significance since the publication of Edward Said's ‘Orientalism’ in 1978. Othering is not about ignorance or lack of knowledge, quite the opposite – it is about assuming superior knowledge against another individual or group of individuals. Said highlighted how misrepresentation can cause othering and used the term Orientalism to refer to the patronizing Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian, and North African societies. He claimed that colonialism happened not only through the seize of power and rule, but also through representation in literature, art, and cultural heritage. In his interview in 1998, Said described how in recent years media has contributed towards creating contrasts between the East and the West, especially showcasing Islam as a religion which has an aim to destroy Western democracy (Palestine Diary, 2012). Race has also been said to be the subject of othering. A few black American public intellectuals, such as Toni Morrison and James Baldwin, used a phrase white gaze to describe the political, socio-economic, and cultural processes of the Global South people of colour against the Northern standards (Pailey, 2019). Developing countries

(26)

are seen as lacking the skills, resources, and should go after the global agenda of prosperity and modernisation. Hence, there is a need for advisors and fate changers from the more advanced nations. White gaze is proposed to have many shapes and forms nowadays in the development field. Post-colonisers are often said to still have great influence on the various matters of their former colonies. Pailey (2019) described her personal encounters as a black woman involved in African politics and Western bureaucrats coming to Liberia and other African countries to serve as advisors to the local government. In her opinion:

“Whiteness remains a signifier of expertise, whether real or perceived.” (Pailey, 2019, p. 3)

According to Tavernaro-Haidarian (2019), white gaze comes with the Western powers constructing and imposing the measurements for success, which are very often related to the values and political ideologies of their own.

White gaze is significant in development communication. Wright (2018) suggested that

spokesperson’s role is important in reporting a situation. In her book ‘Who is reporting Africa now?’ she highlighted that there are fewer and fewer reporters covering remote areas or specializing in particular fields, while various NGOs, which are active in Africa, have been very vocal and, in order to draw more funds, painted an imbalanced picture of the continent. As a result, the whole continent is portrayed from a certain prism - as suffering and dependant and only ‘white man as saviour’ can resolve it. Specific words play an important role in communication. McEwan (2019) stressed that white gaze and

othering are strongly reinforced using certain terms, e.g., developing vs. developed countries, North vs. South, the others, etc. They create contrast which only fuels the

separation.

5.2 Terminology matters: outcome vs. impact

“Things don’t mean, we construct meaning” – a well-known phrase by Stuart Hall (1997, p.11), who later continues “In part we give things meaning by how we represent them – the words we use about them, the stories we tell about them, the images of them we produce, the emotions we associate with them, the ways we classify and

(27)

are received and interpreted matter for a variety of reasons, including the expectations we build for the words or concepts as well as what they start representing. Playing with context and representation of the term may change perceptions and this viewpoint has been a ground for debate among development academics. For instance, Standing (2000, as cited in Stone, 2003) argued that the World Bank’s self-constructed image as the ’knowledge bank’ for development, along with its role in defining and proposing models and ideologies of ’development best practice’ to borrower countries, has created a knowledge hegemony in developing countries.

There have been many more debates about the terminology used for development interventions. Eade (2007), having glanced through the development literature, suggests that capacity building became a synonym for institutional or organisational development and a sloppy piece of aid jargon and often is no more than a serious-sounding alternative to training. “After all, no NGO could admit to funding one-off training workshops whose impact may be short-lived”, – she says (Eade, 2007, p. 632). Esser and Williams (2014) compared the frequency of two alternative conceptualisations of poverty and inequality in three different document categories: the World Bank’s World Development Reports, the Human Development Reports of the United Nations Development Programme, and a set of white papers by bilateral donor agencies. They demonstrated how such agency-specific framing patterns and language can be leveraged politically to forge more effective social policy coalitions. Similarly, Cornwall (2007) highlighted how the development discourse shapes development practices on the ground. She argued that the language used does matter for development, and that development buzzwords such as poverty, poverty reduction,

poverty eradication, participation and good governance are not simply passwords to

funding and influence and are more than the specialist jargon characteristic of the development profession.

The whole notion of development is said to be centred around models, myths, and passions, which are sustained by using certain phrases and concepts, i.e., development buzzwords. Buzzwords get their buzz from being in-words, words that define what is in vogue. A further stretch is fuzzwords – the words that are intentionally vague and can

(28)

be interpreted in many ways. Cornwall (ibid.) argued that by promoting and using such buzzwords or fuzzwords, the international development community provides political and socio-economic purpose of the activities that are carried out, often with an aim to pursue neoliberal policy agenda.

Many of the words that have enjoyed a comet speed rise in popularity over the past decade are those which speak to an agenda for transforming development’s relationships. The terms civil society, social capital, and partnership are as ubiquitous as community, evoking much the same warm mutuality. Standing (2001, as cited in Cornwall, 2007) put it, these kinds of words are “intended to invite automatic approval” and their rising fortunes have been as much to do with their feel-good factor as with what they promised to deliver. Belcher and Palenberg (2018) concentrated their research on examining two particular terms which are very frequently used for evaluating development interventions: outcome and impact. They proposed that although widely used, the terms are ubiquitous in evaluation discourse - there are many competing definitions that lack clarity and consistency and sometimes represent fundamentally different meanings. The terminology used plays a significant part in constructing the scope of the role the intervention has played in bringing change.

Causal perspective is considered as the viewpoint from which interventions and

changes are observed or described and the authors suggest two principal casual perspectives:

1. The intervention perspective, which assumes that the intervention does not cause all of the change. Rather, it is only interested in the portion of the change caused by the intervention.

2. The system perspective, which holds a belief that one or a set of interventions contribute to observed change but are usually not understood to represent necessary or sufficient causes for it.

The two approaches to relation of intervention to change give different emphasis on the scope of change the project has brought. Consequently, the perspective with which the term is communicated as well as later interpreted by the ones receiving information, matters. Similarly, Heeks & Molla (2009) suggested that the two terms

(29)

• Outcomes are based on immediate costs and benefits of the ICT4D project (economic, direct, intended, positive, short-term, subjective).

• Impacts are based on the contribution the project makes toward development goals (social impacts, negative, long-term, indirect, unintended, final impacts, objective measures).

It seems important not only to analyse how differently the two terms impact and

outcome are communicated by the donor agencies, but also how the recipient

organisations understand them and whether they feel the need to distinguish them. Hence, I propose to review impact evaluation practices carried out by multilateral development agencies from the two perspectives: first of all, what factors and elements are said to be important – how do specific terms used influence how those mechanisms and results are communicated to various stakeholders and further – how the recipients feel the terms should be used, using the two case studies as examples.

(30)

6. Methodology

A review of ICT4D research and publications on this topic has been performed to get a good overview of how well this subject has been debated and examined as well as what are the key theories and ideas proposed by the researchers. The analysis also revealed how the approach towards development has changed throughout time and where it stands now.

Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) described discourse analysis as a particular way of talking about and understanding the world. Studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context can help to depict specific viewpoints. The way people speak and formulates arguments are influenced by their understanding of the world, essentially their ideologies. Foucault (1980, as cited in Cheek, 2008) argued that through language people construct reality. But due to power relations, not all discourses are afforded equal presence or equal authority. Language can be used as a tool to claim authority or lessen another’s role. Hence, context is an important element in framing how the situation is to be viewed and what matters.

To assess how ICT related projects have been evaluated and communicated in practice, a two-step discourse analysis has been performed to examine websites, social media channels, news articles, various publications (including annual reports) and other types of publicly available information of funding bodies. A special attention was paid to the language and formulations regarding intervention evaluations and project stories. The following organisations which provide monetary and/or other resource support and are somewhat different in composition and funding have been investigated for primary analysis:

• International Development Association (IDA), part of The World Bank • United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

• Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) • The European Commission (EC) International Partnership • Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) • Oxfam International

(31)

• Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation

Please refer to Appendix 1 for detailed methods and results of the primary discourse analysis. The examination provided a holistic overview of the development assistance sector; however, it also yielded a great volume of information. Due to space limitations, it will not be analysed in greater detail, but it is worth pointing out, that 7 out of 8 of the organisations listed above focus their communication on the changes achieved due to the implemented or co-financed projects, while broader context of the intervention is rarely reflected. To provide the reader with an ICT focused lens, the above list has been narrowed down for further secondary analysis based on the following criteria:

• The organisation provides grants and no or low-interest loans to developing countries

• Its mission is described to address development • It is a multilateral organisation

• Project scope includes ICT initiatives

• Project geography is worldwide rather than regional

Two organisations match the above criteria – the IDA and ITU-DF. The former is part of the World Bank Group and is a unit purposefully created for addressing development (World Bank, 2021). ITU is a specialised agency responsible for all matters related to information and communication technologies and is part of UN umbrella, while its division ITU-DF specifically deals with funding development projects.

Since the ICT4D research field is relatively new, studies and literature reviews are readily available and accessible online. Being a student at Malmö University also provides me with an opportunity to access the publications free of charge, hence, enabling to review a great volume of studies and reviews. Most organisations providing monetary or resource assistance have their documentation available in English and they are easily accessible online. Furthermore, in most cases they are well-structured and well-presented making them easy to read, interpret and understand. However, the documents related to further development after the projects had been implemented are very limited with some not available in English. Hence, there is a

(32)

danger of only having a one-way (donor) perspective which reflects an interest to demonstrate that a difference has been made and the funding should continue.

Therefore, a case study analysis is expected to benefit the research project by providing a fact-based picture. Blatter and Haverland (2012) described case studies as a research approach in which one or a few instances of a phenomenon are studied in depth. Such extensive approach is expected to provide facts and numbers which are accompnied by the viewpoints of the beneficiaries. As well as providing a practical example of the matter, case study analysis is inexpensive and can be completed within a distance given the current conditions due to COVID-19. Two projects in ICT, more precisely cybersecurity, field have been chosen. Thus, both cases happen to be co-financed by IDA and the ITU-DF.

• Cyprus-CY: The establishment of National Cyprus Computer Security Incident Response Team (Cyprus-CY) co-financed by the European Union (EU) and the ITU-DF. The project was implemented in 2016 and the result of the project is a dedicated and equipped team to oversee cybersecurity attacks targeting strategic objects within a country, such as power plants, airports, water supply facilities, etc. My reader may wonder why Cyprus has been chosen – it is not classified as a developing country. Purposefully, I am willing to showcase that development projects, especially in ICT field, no longer solely consider the Global South.

• BGD e-GOV CIRT: The establishment of Bangladesh National Computer Incident Response Team (BGD e-GOV CIRT) co-financed by IDA. The project was implemented in 2017 and the result is a team of cybersecurity experts and analysts, who monitor country’s cyberspace, paying specific attention to the financial sector.

Both cases are related due to the nature of the projects, however, the funding has been given and received under unlike circumstances and by different organisations. In case of Bangladesh, it was provided by IDA and received by Bangladesh Computer Council (BCC), an institution responsible for digital development and security within

(33)

solely focusing on cybersecurity in the country. Also, the geographical location, political situation and development level are very different in the two countries. The case study analysis was performed in a two-step approach. First, publicly available related documents and factsheets have been analysed. These included texts and figures communicated by the organisations which provided the funds, the recipients, and any other stakeholders of the two projects. Secondly, a combination of survey research with open-answer questionnaires and interviewing has been performed with the receiving organisations. According to Glasow (2005), surveys and interviews can help to capture individual opinions and perspectives, hence, provide a personal viewpoint and assessment of the situation. Survey questions, which have been distributed among all employees (43 in Bangladesh and 12 in Cyprus) can be found in the Appendix 3. In both organisations about one-third of the staff provided answers – 13 in Bangladesh and 4 in Cyprus. Follow-up interviews have been organised with the respondents who shared their details – 8 in Bangladesh and 1 in Cyprus. An option to stay anonymous was provided in both cases. The majority of the respondents have been part of the CSIRT establishment project, but their roles and positions within their organisations vary. I assumed it was not relevant to ask the staff about their age or gender for the purpose of this research, so these aspects have not been considered. However, the enquiry about their nationality, background and their alma mater would have provided additional discussion points for the analysis of the western-centrism. The open answers to the survey as well as follow-up interviews enabled the respondents to share the information in their own words and from their own perspectives.

Unfortunately, as the respondents had incredibly busy schedules due to increased cyber-attacks during the COVID-19 pandemic, the follow-up interviews could only be carried out via a series of emails, WhatsApp application or LinkedIn social network. Hence, respondents’ body language, facial expressions and tone of voice could not contribute towards the information collection. Although the interviews at many times rely on respondents’ ability to recall the occurrences and circumstances of the events accurately and honestly, since the aim is to analyse impact, this research may actually benefit from the fact that quite a significant amount of time has passed. The

(34)

respondents were able to express their thoughts, perceptions, and insights about the changes the project has brought and whether they have lived up to the expectations.

6.1 Limitations

This essay is limited to the breadth and depth of the research which has been carried out. Although the discourse analysis was intentionally performed with funding organisations of diverse size, and organisational and governing structures, the examination of broader spectrum and volume of funding organisations could provide a more holistic perspective. Also, the analysed organisations have originated in the West and the analysis as well as comparison of other funding bodies originating from other regions, such as Asian Development Bank or Islamic Development Bank, could provide an additional perspective.

The two projects, analysed for the case study, represent cybersecurity field, which may just partly represent the ICT area. In both cases the arguments are built based on the answers from the staff of sole organisation and the responses from stakeholders from other related organizational bodies would no doubt have enriched the essay. I also have to acknowledge that I have had a working relationship with the two organisations analysed as I am employed by NRD Cyber Security, an organisation which has been hired to establish both CSIRT-CY and BGD e-GOV CIRT.

(35)

7. Analysis

The role of ICTs in development has never been more on the spotlight - not only the use of digital tools and ways of conducting services have skyrocketed in the Global North, but also donor organisations say they have strategies that prioritise digital in development (ICT4D conference in 2019; EU-Africa strategy). While some scholars believe that the ICTs can and do lead to economic development, others raise questions about designing and implementing ICT projects successfully, that would effectively benefit the end-beneficiaries. A few researchers are doubtful altogether and question the very premise of ICT leading to development (De et al., 2018).

Andersson et al. (2012) argued that most development practices and evaluations of these practices are still based on Western ideas of modernisation, evolutionism and the need for modern market systems where economic growth and quickly achieved results are considered the most important measures for development. This

western-centric approach is said to be evident not only in project initiation, but also in

communication about development incentives. The following analysis of the two funding organisations and the means and methods used for project evaluation as well as communicating the impact will test this hypothesis, while case study analysis will provide project stakeholder perspective.

7.1 Donor agencies and how they measure impact?

Organisation IDA ITU-DF

Purpose Interest-free loans and grants to governments of the poorest countries (World Bank, 2021a)

Co-finances projects with partners from ITU Members, the public and private sector, multilateral

organisations, financial

institutions, and development agencies (ITU, 2021a)

Ownership The World Bank, which is governed by member

countries with the US playing a major role by appointing key

United Nations, which holds responsibility to member states with Japan, the US, Germany, France, Italy, the Russian

(36)

officials, such as the bank’s president (World Bank, 2020a)

Federation, China, Australia, Canada, and Saudi Arabia being the greatest contributors (ITU, 2018b)

Established In 1944 to help rebuild Europe and Japan after World War II (World Bank, 2021a)

In 1865 to standardise the use and application of telegraphy and other technology (ITU, 2021a)

Funding comes from

• Funds raised in the financial markets

• Earnings on investments • Member fees

• Contributions by members • Paid back loans

(World Bank, 2021)

• Membership fees

• Voluntary contributions for specific project

• Sales from publications, training, etc.

(ITU, 2018b)

Proposed evaluation methods

• The IDA Results

Measurement System (IDA, 2020)

• Evaluation in Practice handbook (World Bank, 2016)

• Focus on tangible measuring methods, such as

percentages, changes in rankings, etc. which are easy to showcase in numbers • Assessment of before and

after situation

• Project management guidelines and templates (ITU, 2020) • Focus on tangible measuring

methods, such as percentages, number of staff trained, etc. which are easy to showcase in numbers

• Assessments of before and after situation

Evaluation encouraged to be done by

Project teams (World Bank, 2016)

Project teams or external evaluators (ITU, 2020)

(37)

mandatory? • Some post implementation

assessments are carried out by ITU-D secretariat (ITU, 2021a)

Are spokespersons included in the evaluation process? Encouragement to include various stakeholders (World Bank, 2016)

Encouragement to include various stakeholders (ITU, 2020)

Communication about projects done via

• Project stories and overview against goals (IDA, 2020) • Key achievement publication

(IDA, 2019)

• Annual report (World Bank, 2020b)

• Project stories on ITU website (ITU, 2021a)

• Case studies (ITU, 2021b)

• Social media (Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin)

• Project stories from partners and third parties implementing the project

Terminology for project results

• Outcome is used in project documents while impact is used in project stories and annual reports

• Outcome is used in project documents while impact is used in project stories and PR

communication

Both organisations encourage evaluation of all the projects they finance or co-finance, however, a comprehensive review is not compulsory. Also, both provide guidelines for evaluation teams which suggest a number of evaluation methods, all of which are assessing the before and after situation.

ITU are producing an annual ‘Facts and Figures report’, which benchmarks countries against one another in terms of access to or usability of certain technologies and some of these benchmarks are incorporated in the evaluation mechanisms. However, the focus on accessibility can be challenged - according to Toyama (2011, as cited in Thapa & Sabo, 2018), increased access to ICTs does not guarantee a meaningful use of them and subsequent meaningful impacts. Heek and Molla (2009) proposed that in many

Evaluating Donor-Funded ICT Projects : How Significant is Western-Centrism?