Challenges of Mobiles for Development (M4D)

Donner's article "Blurring Lives and Livelihoods" raises many important and valid points about the advantages and complex functions of mobiles for development (M4D).  One of the most important points of Donner's article is that its non-economic and non-developmental functions should not be ignored; in other words, that the mobile's social function is just as significant as its capabilities in the business world. As the title of the article might imply, mobiles render the separation between daily lives and the workplace increasingly ambiguous.

Though supported by little empirical evidence, this point makes logical sense: to suggest that one use of a phone is the only use that merits any attention is to take an overly simplistic view of a large issue. However, Donner's argument could extend a little further. While the article confronts the ways in which researchers and analysts could improve the implementation of  M4Ds, it never asks the question of the limitations of the concept of M4D in general. It is a simple concept that many would like to believe: give mobile devices to the struggling poor in third-world countries and their economies will subsequently expand. But it is unlikely that a problem of this scale can be solved with so simple a solution.

Something that struck me as odd while I was preparing this blog entry was the lack of available information on M4Ds; while I found many case studies dealing with M4Ds, I also found that they don't have their own Wikipedia page nor do they appear at all frequently in the media. With such a lack of exposure, if one can't easily find information about M4Ds by using Google or opening a newspaper, I was led to wonder about the potential of their success on a global scale.

If the general public doesn't know about M4Ds or consider them to be important, then those organizations who can give grants and funding to the program might not either; if their donors and sponsors are not inclined to give to a cause, then that cause may very well not receive funding.

Heather Thorne, the director of ICT innovation at the Grameen Foundation's Technology Center, suggests lack of grants and funding as one of four main obstacles that M4Ds face, but for a different reason. Most grants only give funding for about a year, which is an insufficient amount of time to properly assess the impact of M4Ds in society, according to Thorne.

The other three limitations that she lists are the lack of intermediaries involved with M4Ds (that technology is not as understandable without an intermediary speaking in easily comprehensible, direct language); the lack of a social performance measurement (people will not invest in a program without empirically proven success, so some measurement must be instated); and the inherent difficulties in implementing a long-term program.  These are all noteworthy points that are explored with little to no detail in the article.

While "Blurring Lives and Livelihoods" did raise interesting issues about the considerations that M4D researchers should be dealing with, I felt that its analysis was limited; in order to truly understand the issue, one must be slightly more broad-minded.