21st Century Food Crisis?

Just under a year ago I was working in the national procurement department of a large food company. The big buzz in the office at that time was the significant escalation in price of many of the inputs: from wheat to dairy to corn to apple juice to vitamin C. For some ingredients, such price increases would impact the company's costs by over a billion dollars each. However, what struck me the most at the time was how a lot of old-timers (several of which had over a decade of experience in food procurement of all kinds) claimed that they had never seen such high price increases across the board ever in their careers. Since that time, the issue has only exacerbated: by the end of summer high dairy prices in supermarkets hit the headlines all across America, and we continued to see food prices rise. By March and April there were riots across the world (Haiti, Cameroon - where 24 people were killed, Indonesia, Egypt, and China, among others) by the masses who saw much of their staples such as rice increase by as much as 141% (BBC article).

BBC has a page, "The cost of food: Facts and Figures" which graphically illustrates well the consensus that world food prices have drastically been raised (and the reasons why), and that this seems to be a relatively long-standing change as opposed to a short-term cyclical event. Below are a few of the best graphs from the page:

So who has and will be hurt most? Undeniably this would be the world's poor, who spend most (if not all) of their disposable income on food - in the developing parts of Asia, over a billion people have been seriously affected by the food price surge (Kuroda WSJ article). Rice, the main staple of Asia, illustrates best the price surge effects. For a country-by-country breakdown of rice production, consumption, and costs, visit this BBC page here.

There has been a plethora of detailed articles and informed analysis published in recent weeks (see links below), and many issues are brought up. The drivers for the price increase are usually agreed upon and are as follows: rising demand for both grains and meat as millions of Chinese and Indians join the middle class, ambitious western biofuel programs which drive up the price of corn and cereals, hoarding, rising fuel costs (in transporting food), a not-so-great year of weather (especially in Australia which produces much of the world's wheat), and extensive market distortions in the form of subsidies/quotas/disincentives. However, there is great debate over these drivers and the extent to which they truly have caused the "food crisis."

But perhaps the most debated issue is also the most critical: what should be done to 'solve' this problem. For the very first entry of TechPov, I talked about the Green Revolution in the 1960's and 1970's, where agricultural tech advances helped improve yields to feed a seemingly out-of-control, exploding population. It seems history has come full circle so that we again are at a point in which demand seems to exceed supply, and disastrous results are not only imminent but unavoidable. In my research, there were dozens of explanations and solutions, however what interested me most were the following two contrasting angles:

1. There is no shortage, the real problem is in the systems in place.

Even if one allows for rising demand from Asia's middle classes, the real challenge is not the volume of food available; it is the problem of food being in the wrong place and at a price the poorest cannot afford (Economist).

Solution: We need to fix both the distribution and food aid systems (most notably the odd monetization that often occurs, improve the delivery of nutrients in the food chain, educate about hygenie, and target subsides/vouchers in 'ways that complement markets rather than distort them '(Economist article).

2. There is a supply problem, we need to invest in more technologies.

"Absolutely, science is going to play a key role," said Kent Bradford, director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at the University of California, Davis. "The fact is that the reason we have been able to have food and [have] not had these shortages for the last 40 years is in fact the green revolution and the technologies that went with it. If we are really going to make a quantum leap, raise the yield thresholds significantly, then probably biotechnology is going to help." (Moskowitz 1)

Solution: More or less, we need to have a 'Second Green Revolution'. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, one of the major contributors to the first Green Revolution, just today called for a nine-point program to deal with the problem and prevent a future crisis from happening. The IRRI's proposed solution of increasing investment and research with the 'committed support of donors and policymakers [and] better awareness among the media and general public of the problems we face' not only continues but builds on all the technologies and advancements that the 1st Green Revolution provided. The difference this time, however, would be that we would see much more of a trend towards biotechnology, as opposed to simple changes in agricultural practices (which made a huge difference in the first time around). An article by Clara Moskowitz at Foxnews.com goes into good details about how many scientists really see GMO foods as the answer to the food crisis. It the article, Moskowitz touches upon several works-in-progress, such as making the protein in grain sorghum (a big crop in Africa) more efficiently digestable and even the potential for making an animal-free meat (also see this Popular Science article for details). Rather than get grossed out or have rather irrational fears against GMOs (which were mentioned by Moskowitz - it is a Fox news outlet, after all), its important to realize that if ideas such as they come to fruition, they could well represent a new paradigm in food production which would highly benefit those who are poor not only because of their lowered cost but because of their nutritional content.

In the months that I have been writing this blog, I have not once ceased to be amazed at the real and momentous impact that technology has been shown to have on millions of lives all around the world. This entry only furthers the notion that the acceptance of and investment in technology is not only extremely influential in alleviating, combating, and preventing poverty, but also absolutely critical.

Articles of interest not mentioned in the entry:
Economist - The Silent Tsunami
Economist - The New Face of Hunger
WSJ - Africa Does Not Have to Starve (by Norman Borlaug)
BBC Special Report - Assessing the Global Food Crisis
Nancy Pelosi Statement on Global Food Crisis

The Almighty Cellphone - Part II

Last week, TechPov discussed the opportunities for poverty alleviation for the masses in the form of cell-phone proliferation. Arguments for cell-phones included efficiency gains as well as tangible and direct increases in income due to cell-phone utility. Today, we look at an actual product which has clearly been targeted towards these 'untapped' poor and rural markets.

Spice Communications Ltd., a telecommunications firm based out of India, last month unveiled their 'People's Phone,' (see image below) a no frills mobile handset (no display, no flip, no features) priced at less than $20 USD. This low-price tag is an extreme innovation, with no other major mobile makers ever having set such a price, making it the world's cheapest cellphone (see below for more details).

In an article in the International Herald Tribune (where this picture is sourced), Spice Mobile President Paul Shoker and article author Victoria Shannon explain why such a product is likely to be extremely successful.

"There is a massive need for these phones," said Shoker, "We are targeting an area from Iraq to Indonesia, and that area has a population of 2.5 billion." India alone could keep the company in rupees. With more than 7 million handsets sold each month, the country accounts for more mobile phone sales than any other. Combine that with the fact that only 17 percent of the population now uses a mobile phone, and the potential is huge, analysts agree.

Spice Mobile is looking to sell 10 million phones in its first year. Currently, there are approximately 1 million orders out on the People's Phone; however, the company says that there is interest from Mexico, Africa, and Indonesia.

As one would expect (and as we found out in our last entry about Nokia), several other big mobile companies are also keeping their eye on the emerging markets piece. Shannon's article mentions the Korean brands LG Electronics and Samsung as others that are quickly moving in the 'low end' market as well. As far as already established models, Nokia's cheapest is approximately $45, and Vodafone offers models that are close to $25 (Corbett article in NYTimes Magazine). Nokia has several entry-level models, and among them is the Nokia 2135 as seen on the right - click the phone for more details.

Here again is a clear example of how the merging of technology and profit-oriented business can actually result in solutions or products that both empower the poor and keep the companies happy: Spice Mobile can now profitably sell this product to mass markets while millions of new customers can now afford a phone and the benefits that come with it (see past entry).

Related Links:
Check out this short Reuters Clip with Spice Mobile's Paul Shoker on YouTube
'A cellphone with no flips, no folds - just a very low price' - IHT Article

The Almighty Cellphone

Its likely that you have heard of OLPC - "One Laptop per Child," a non-profit org whose general goal is to "provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment, and express themselves." And as one can easily infer from the name, OLPC seeks to do so by designing a laptop (and a corresponding distribution system) for hundreds of thousands of children in developing nations. Being quite an ambitious project, OLPC has drawn a host of rather legitimate criticisms. Without getting too much into it (see specific arguments from this 2005 CNN article and this inside-the-industry entry from the Fonley Institute), the overarching theme would be that the resources and money going into OLPC can be much, much, better spent if the end-goal is really to combat childhood poverty. However, what you might not have heard about quite as much, is the real ability for cell-phones to help those in poverty. Compared to a laptop, it makes a lot more sense for two big reasons: it is cheaper, and it brings instant connectivity. A really interesting article in the NYTimes Magazine this week really brought to the surface that idea that a cellphone, which of course seems quite trivial to us, can make quite a tangible difference in the daily lives of the poor.

The article is rather lengthy, and it primarily focuses on Jan Chipchase, who works for Nokia as a 'user anthropologist.' Chipchase's job is broadly defined, and more less allows him to roam all the corners of the earth to gain insight and knowledge on human behavior - such insight is later fed back to his company's designers, technologists, and marketing people.

The premise of the work is simple — get to know your potential customers as well as possible before you make a product for them. But when those customers live, say, in a mud hut in Zambia or in a tin-roofed hutong dwelling in China, when you are trying — as Nokia and just about every one of its competitors is — to design a cellphone that will sell to essentially the only people left on earth who don’t yet have one, which is to say people who are illiterate, making $4 per day or less and have no easy access to electricity, the challenges are considerable (Corbett 2).

Its easy not see see the 'good' in this, that Chipchase and his Fortune 500 employer are only out to squeeze every last drop of profit out from a market that isn't even yet developed. However, it seems to be the case that in this situation, capitalistic intentions could actually bring forth positive outcomes: that Nokia's hunt to capture more consumers might (quite deliberately) lead to the betterment of their lives.

How? The article talks about simple things like 'just-in-time' efficiency afforded by a cell-phone (i.e. meeting someone by calling them when you are nearby, as opposed to the rather inefficient method of trying to set a time and place). Obviously this is a rather trivial example and seems almost second nature to us, but as Corbett puts it,

...there are more than 3.3 billion mobile-phone subscriptions worldwide, which means that there are at least three billion people who don’t own cellphones, the bulk of them to be found in Africa and Asia. Even the smallest improvements in efficiency, amplified across those additional three billion people, could reshape the global economy in ways that we are just beginning to understand.

Perhaps a more compelling and tangible argument for how cellphone connectivity can alleviate poverty is the direct benefit in terms of income and productivity. In the article, Chipman offers countless anecdotes (the porter who used to spend days waiting can now just go where jobs are, the farmer who can right away find the prices and a buyer for his product, and the former indentured servant who can now get booked for her services outside) that illustrate the difference simply when one is able to be reached - that they now have a 'fixed identity point.' For a more in depth look at the 'how,' see this Washington Post article about the positive impact cellphones on the empowerment of Indian fishermen (i.e. via cutting out the middleman, connecting to customers, information on techniques). For such beneficiaries, the impact is clear: a real increase in income, which then leads to more resources for growing businesses.

Keep in mind, also, that cell-phone connectivity works as a case of bottom-up development in which individuals are empowered to be active participants. This runs counter to (and often times is believed to be more effective than) the traditional top-down aid schemes where money is filtered down through bureaucratic organizations before reaching the individuals.

At the end of the day, the use of cell-phones combats the problem of information asymmetry for all involved, leading to a more efficient outcome. And for places in which information asymmetry is a huge problem (i.e. the developing world), and a huge value-destroyer, it can make a real difference in people's lives.


Other related links (not mentioned in the blog entry):

Social Marketing/Change Blog remarking on the NYTimes Magazine article

2001 NYTimes article about Cellphones' Impact in Rural Asia (with an interesting viewpoint from Bill Gates)

This month's Economist Article about Connectivity (not as much about its affect on poverty)

Jan Chipchase's popular blog Future Perfect (about the mobile world)

WSJ article which talks about How Text Messaging is being used to send out Health Information

Online Entertainment = Poverty Alleviation?

A few of you may remember hungersite.com, the original click-to-donate website launched in 1999 based on the simple premise that if visitors to the site click a button on the site (limited to once per day), sponsorship from advertisers would allow the click to translate into a equivalent donation to 1.1 cups of food (via the World Food Program, the UN's food aid branch). I remember bookmarking it and visiting it frequently - however, I was never really sure whether it was really legitimate and really how everything worked. In fact, it has been successful: CharityUSA.com (the site's new owner as of 2001) in 2007 reported that 9.2 tonnes of food had been generated by the site.

More recently, the creator of hungersite.com, a computer programmer named John Breen, has made a similar site with the aim of alleviating worldwide hunger through simple site visits. What makes this site different? Its actually a game. The site, FreeRice.com, structures itself as a simple vocabulary game, with different levels. Breen fashioned the site after watching his son study for the verbal section of his SAT. It's much easier if you just check it out then if I try to explain it - so give it a go. For the competitive ones out there, I got up to level 29 before it started getting a bit difficult.

What sets FreeRice apart from the dozens of traditional charity sites (i.e. ecologyfund.com, therainforestsite.com, and gearthatgives.com) that rely on click-through advertising revenue and proceeds from merchandise purchses, is that it leverages the popularity of casual online games. In an article about the site in the NYTimes, author Rob Walker explains why this is notable:

With tens of millions of regular players, “casual games are among the stickiest, most-sought-after content online,” according to a white paper posted on the site of the International Game Developers Association. The core texts of casual gaming are solitaire and Tetris. It’s a safe bet that a great deal of casual gaming occurs in the workplace, where it’s more discreet than paddle ball.

The combination of simplicity and addictiveness of FreeRice is what has made it a success in capturing traffic from both office workers and students (college kids have even taken to competing against eachother on Facebook on the FreeRice app), and ultimately in its rice donation totals:

• October 7, 2007 - FreeRice launches with 830 grains of rice donated on its first day
• November 10, 2007 - FreeRice breaks the one-day 100,000,000-grain milestone with 122,377,240 donated grains
• November 28, 2007 - With continued sponsor support, FreeRice doubled the number of grains donated for each correct definition from 10 to 20.
• December 17, 2007 - FreeRice breaks the one-day 300,000,000-grain milestone with 358,559,540 donated grains
• December 19, 2007 - 10,000,000,000 grains donated in total
• January 20, 2008 - 15,000,000,000 grains donated in total
• February 25, 2008 - 20,000,000,000 grains donated in total

*Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Uganda are among the countries which have received food aid financed from FreeRice.

Walker notes that FreeRice is a triumph because it 'converts passivity into engagement,' and that it illustrates the power of one man (Breen) to change the world. Add to that the fact that Breen did this in his spare time and takes no salary or fees for his time. created not by a team of expert tech-marketing consultants, but by a guy in his spare time.

I believe another reason that FreeRice is a success is how it illustrates the power of technology. Here, we see that Breen took simple technology and really utilized it in a creative way to harness the power of the internet masses and tangibly help the poor and hungry in the world.

Companies and Philanthropy: Debating "Creative Capitalism"

A lot of hoopla is always made whenever large and public companies dip their toes into the philanthropic pool - whether it be Gap's debatable 'Product Red' Campaign or Starbucks' "fair trade" coffee practices. To the extent that this hoopla is positive, it is often undeserved; after all, the real impact of such campaigns is usually so minuscule that they arguably become nothing more than disingenuous marketing ploys. So what sort of companies actually make a difference? The answer might be Tech companies - Google and Microsoft are just a tad more involved, and with their ambitious strategy (of hoping to leverage not only their huge fortunes but also their best and innovative talent), they seem to be more promising.

Google has big goals - in 2004, founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page expressed their hopes that Google.org (the philanthropic division of the company) would one day "eclipse Google itself in overall world impact." Yet its impact is so far only the infantile stage. Hired two years ago, Dr. Larry Brilliant took 18 months to set and cement Google.org's overarching strategy: 5 core initiatives in three areas: fighting climate change, economic development, and building an early-warning system for pandemics. These initiatives were chosen with Google's inherent strengths and capabilities in mind - after all, [Google.org is] focused on what it can do “uniquely,” said Sheryl Sandberg* in a NYTimes article, "if you do things other people could do, you’re not adding value.” Sandberg and Google seem confident of Google.org, but Brilliant remains cautious:

In the 1960s Dr Brilliant bought into the anti-corporate zeitgeist, but “I must have been wrong,” he says. Now he believes that companies can play a big part in solving the world's problems. Is Google.org, with its innovative mix of for-profit and non-profit strategies and political advocacy, within a corporate structure that denies it some of the tax and regulatory advantages of a traditional foundation, a new model for how a big firm should engage with society? “Let's see how we do first,” says Dr Brilliant. (Economist Article 1/19/08)

There are two big differences in Microsoft's (or Bill Gates') approach: first is that the Gates Foundation is completely separate from the company (except that all the money used to initially fund it was from the success of the company) and second is that it is a lot farther along and a lot larger (its annual budget is around $70MM). Recently, Gates made a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland where he talked about the need for 'creative capitalism' - a new form capitalism that encourages companies to think beyond market opportunities. In a really interesting WSJ article about the speech, author Robert Guth draws links between Gates' outlook on philanthropy and capitalism and Grameen Bank founder Muhammad Yunus' similar arguments regarding the incentive issue:

Gates adds his high-profile name to the ranks of those who argue that unfettered capitalism can't solve broad social problems. Muhammad Yunus, the Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for his work providing small loans to the poor, is traversing the U.S. this month promoting a new book that calls capitalism "half developed" because it focuses only on the profit-oriented side of human nature, not on the satisfaction derived from helping others.

It is undeniable that Yunus and Gates have done a lot of good for the world. And many would also argue that there is quite a lot of strength to their theories about why the world is in the state it is in and how we can change it. Yet despite all the grand hopes and progress, it must be noted that there is an educated stance against such forms of philanthropy. Such a stance is best illustrated in a snappish but well-reasoned column published last month by respected economist William Easterly in the WSJ, Why Bill Gates Hates My Book. In the article Easterly reasserts his long-running claim that there is simply no evidence that grand aid schemes actually lift people out of poverty, and that old-fashioned capitalism is still the best and only cure:

Mr. Gates seems to believe that the solution is to persuade for-profit companies to meet the poor's needs by boosting the "recognition" of corporate philanthropy. But the dossier of historical evidence to suggest this would work is as thin as Kate Moss on a diet. First of all, the recognition motive has proven to be awfully weak compared to the profit motive. Otherwise we would have had a lot more than the $5.1 billion of annual American corporate philanthropy to the Third World (as of 2005, which has the most recent reliable figures). That was four one-hundredths of 1% of the $12.4 trillion of U.S. production for the free market. Is it really the poor's only hope that the Gap will donate a few pennies per sexy T-shirt for AIDS treatment in Africa?

Sure, let those who have become rich under capitalism try to do good things for those who are still poor, as Mr. Gates has admirably chosen to do. But a New-Age blend of market incentives and feel-good recognition will not end poverty. History has shown that profit-motivated capitalism is still the best hope for the poor.

It is quite likely that Easterly's cynicism is well founded - his 'simple economics' arguments are as compelling as they are clear. However, the fact that Easterly is able to bring up legitimate questions to the approach of Gates' and others in fighting poverty and other world problems does not negate the endeavor as a whole. So, as naive as it may be, I'm going to have to argue that we should give this 'creative capitalism' concept a chance. What can I say? I'm an optimist.


Recent related news:
Gates Foundation to give $306MM to Assist Poor Farmers
Gates Foundation Head to Leave Longtime Post

*At the time, Google's VP of Global Online Sales and Operations, who was recently appointed as Facebook's Chief Operating Officer.

IT Helps the Homeless in Oklahoma City

In response to the previous entry about IT helping Indian farmers, Alex mentioned a recent article he found which highlights how a Management Information System is being used in Oklahoma City to help the homeless (see Group uses technology to identify OK homeless). The article talks about how an ID system was put in place by the Homeless Alliance, a nonprofit agency which works off of funding by the government. The system helps agencies know who is registered as a homeless, allowing a better allocation of limited resources by avoiding duplication of services.

Another interesting tidbit was that the system was originally conceived to protect against a feared tuberculosis outbreak by requiring card-holders to get a TB test. City centers then required a 'shelter clearance' confirming that the test was taken before admitting a person for the night. I guess in some ways the use of this system seems a bit harsh and cruel (since it would prevent the 'double-dipping' of someone who probably needs services and would also prevent entry in the case of the TB scenario if one had not gotten the test). But I also think that this analytical approach makes sense because it seems to benefit and protect the homeless in Oklahoma City as a whole in the long-run. As the Executive Director of the Homeless Alliance Dan Straughan says in the article, this is an approach that focuses on combating the "systemic" issues.

Adam's article is also important because it illustrates an issue that doesn't get talked about that much, which is poverty in America. Obviously this issue is marginalized since in relation to countless other countries, the United States has relatively low rates of poverty; nevertheless, poverty is still very much present here today. The measurement of the homeless in the United States is of course a very inexact science, but the closest estimate we have comes from the NSHAPC (National Survey of Homeless Assistance and Providers and Clients), which found in 1996 that annual homeless prevalence was between 1.58 to 3.49 million.

Another source of relevant information is the U.S. Census Bureau, which has pretty recent numbers on poverty. On the right is a chart that summarizes the poverty rate since 1969. Click the diagram to see a bigger version. The site also breaks it down by different demographic groups, poverty rate, number in poverty, and poverty line. Of course, of great importance and controversy is the method of measurement, which, depending on whether one agrees with it or not, makes or breaks the numbers.

What's Next for the Oklahoma IT ID system: The Homeless Alliance is expanding its ID program to assist 19 counties in northwest Oklahoma. There are approximately 6,000 homeless people in the state.

**Thank you Alex for the comment and article!**

E-Choupal - IT Initiative Empowers Indian Farmers

Last week, I talked about how technology made an incredible difference to agriculture in the form of the Green Revolution. Technology's impact here was very direct; for example, the introduction of certain strains of rice which would produce higher yields. But technology can also help farmers indirectly, and such is the case with E-Choupal in India.

E-Choupal, a for-profit effort by ITC Limited, has implemented internet kiosks in rural villages which provide farmers not only a resource for vital information (weather, current prices, farming techniques), but also a virtual marketplace, linking them with both buyers of their produce and sellers of seeds/fertilizers. E-Choupal is successful because it combats two big problems with the traditional Indian agricultural markets: information asymmetry (on pricing, weather, and farming practices) and a convoluted supply chain (often with up to six or seven intermediaries including many middlemen who take much of the profits).

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good summary on how E-Choupal works:

Each ITC Limited kiosk [with internet access] is run by a sanchalak—a trained farmer. The computer housed in a farmer’s house is linked to the Internet via phone lines or by a VSAT connection and serves an average of 600 farmers in 10 surrounding villages within about a 5 km radius. The sanchalak bears some operating cost but in return gets commissions for the e-transactions done through his E-Choupal.

Studies have shown that the use of E-Choupal has led to a rise in the incomes of both large and small farmers in India. Equally amazing is that the system is run without government aid or subsidy and is in fact profitable (ITC's net procurement costs fall by approximately 2.5%). Currently there are over 6,500 E-Choupal kiosks serving over 1 million farmers. ITC is expanding still, and plans to have 20,000 kiosks and service 25 million farmers by 2010.

Interestingly, ITC is also looking to take advantage of the E-Choupal network channel its built by introducing more content and business (Murphy, InfoWeek Article).

"We're seeing it as a universal network that connects rural India to the rest of the world," says S. Sivakumar, CEO of the ITC's agri-business division. Sivakumar sees opportunities for credit, health care, and education delivered through the network, though it hasn't figured out the business models for all those yet. This year, it hopes to offer for-fee vocational training, such as in basic computer skills, or in the services and retail industries. It's looking to set up microfinance programs so people buy training and pay it back once they get a job. ITC's also looking at whether e-choupals can support fresh produce sales. Today, it focuses on grains.

E-Choupal is one of the biggest examples of how India's burgeoning IT sector is helping the poor. Another great example I read about recently is Babajob, another example of poverty-inspired IT innovation. Babajob hopes to take the power of social networks and apply them to the low-skilled job market. Take a look at this NYTimes article for more details. Though it may be too early to judge whether Babajob is a success, it and companies like it illustrate that there are infinite ways that IT may be able to help the poor in a sustainable (and even profitable) manner.

** Additional links to check out to learn more about E-Choupal:
Quick Video on youtube
World Resources Institute Case Study
Indian Economy Blog

An Introductory Entry: The Green Revolution

These days, when one thinks of technology, one thinks of the internet, information systems, networks, inventions, biotech, and the future. That is why it is also easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the use of technology to alleviate poverty is something new, that all these 21st century innovations now enable the chance for significant progress in the uphill climb against poverty. Though it is undeniable that there are certain possibilities that have only come into existence in the last couple of years (which indeed, future blog entries are likely to harp on), it is also interesting to note that the use of technology as a force against poverty has taken place for hundreds of years. In my opinion, there is no better example of this than in the field of agricultural technology.

The Green Revolution, which had its beginnings in the mid 20th century but continues have implications in numerous developing countries around the world, is believed to have saved hundreds of millions of lives from starvation. The use of programs in agricultural research and infrastructural development led to an agricultural transformation in major food crops, increasing worldwide food production significantly. There is a great article by the International Food Policy Research institute which summarizes the history, work, and debated legacy of the Green Revolution, ultimately concluding that, despite negative environmental impacts and non-universal success in different regions,

... the Green Revolution was a major achievement for many developing countries and gave them an unprecedented level of national food security. It represented the successful adaptation and transfer of the same scientific revolution in agriculture that the industrial countries had already appropriated for themselves. The Green Revolution also lifted large numbers of poor people out of poverty and helped many nonpoor people avoid the poverty and hunger they would have experienced had the Green Revolution not occurred. The largest benefits to the poor were mostly indirect, in the form of lower food prices, increased migration opportunities, and greater employment in the rural nonfarm economy.

The Green Revolution also was groundbreaking to existing schools of economic thought on issues of population growth: classical economists David Ricardo (whose models are still used today) and Thomas Malthus had both assumed technology as unchanging and constant, leading to views that population growth would outpace food production, resulting in famine/boom cycles. The Revolution illustrated that the application of modern science and technology led to an output in which food production actually increased faster than world population growth. Such a result illustrated that the world population was not constrained by food production (as previously thought), and so, at least theoretically, it should be possible to end famine. This sentiment and its implications are well illustrated by Nobel peace prize winner Norman Borlaug ("father of the Green Revolution") in a lecture in Oslo in 2000:

"I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called “organic” methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot."

Welcome!

Surprisingly, I've always seemed to avoid blogs - not reading them, of course, but having my own. Like a lot of other 21-year olds, I'm definitely no stranger to online forms of communication and expression*; after all, I grew up on them. But I think I've always felt like writing journal entries online [an obviously outdated definition of blogging] for the world to read was a bit too personal. Then again, maybe I just needed an excuse.

So maybe its a good thing I'm taking this elective class where the professor has given a relatively simple course-long assignment: to blog about tech successfully. Now that I think about it, I'm sort of excited: I get to write, which really I don't do much of anymore, and I get to explore and comment on subjects that interest me.

But before I get any further, I guess I should introduce myself. So I'm Goldie, a senior at USC's undergraduate business school. I couldn't really decide what to major in so I ended up doing a little bit of Finance, a little bit of Information and Operations Management, and a bit of international economics (my minor). I was born here in Southern California, but grew up entirely in Asia - mostly in Taipei and Singapore.

Being from Asia, I pretty much knew right away that I wanted to blog about Asia. It was incredibly hard to decide on a topic because there are so many huge things/trends/issues right now all around Asia that interest me, and especially to do with technology - globalization, tech hubs, IT shifts, biotech funding, venture capitalists, agricultural tech, tech policy, infrastructure, and the list goes on forever.

In the end, I've decided on a topic which could potentially touch upon all the above issues; at the same time, however, it is a topic that on its own has various implications and is of interest to everyone. My blog is going to be about how technology affects poverty, and more specifically, how technological innovations are being used to alleviate poverty.

In the weeks to come, I hope to comment on both the success stories in this arena (for example, the story of EChoupal, a computer/internet system that has instigated rural transformation across India by giving farmers direct access to buyers and seed sellers, as well as information on farming techniques, leading to improved yields), and also talk about potential tech-related solutions to the current obstacles in the battle against poverty.

Along the way, I welcome any comments, questions, and definitely opinions. Feel free to throw any links my way when it comes to related articles or topics.

Thank you!



*aka ICQ, quickDot, msn, aim, circleup, linkedin, facebook, and of course, other people's myspaces.