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
