by

Efficacy of Global frameworks

We’ve talked a lot about global frameworks as major steps towards sustainable development. Mobilization of multiple high level political actors is integral to successfully changing the world. Global frameworks keep powerful states and organizations engaged in the sustainable development process and demonstrate to the world that it is an issue that is being taken seriously and states want to see progress done.  However, frameworks are only solutions if they are actually working. A large problem with international law and policy is that there are no legal means to enforce cooperation. International law is really just an agreed upon code of conduct, which no country has the true power to enforce other than through coercion. There are no world police to arrest violators of international law, that would be ridiculous. Global frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights are signed and ratified by countries, but how do we know if requirements are being met or if they are even effective? The Millennium Development Goals, which came into effect in 2000 were supposed to be met by the year 2015.  For the reasons outlined above, their success was very limited. The goals were not legally binding to any country, and though many countries were on the right track, the goals ultimately were not effective enough. For this reason the follow up goals, the SDG’s, were far more detailed on how goals were to be met and provided specific targets and ways to operationalize sustainability. Though frameworks are not binding, there are ways to facilitate cooperation  and participation among states.

 

Having a multitude of countries signed on to the same framework makes them more likely to be followed. First and foremost is for the prestige and the social pressure to do the right thing. A sort of “peer pressure” system occurs where major states, particularly in the Western world, feel obligated to promote values of peace and sustainability in order to fit in with the progressive mentality that has become the norm. If a powerful state deviates from the norm it shows a lack of willingness to cooperate at a global level, which may make other states hesitate to work with said state. The integration of morality into politics plays a big role in the success of sustainable development initiatives. Moral obligations force states to commit to change. If we looked at sustainable development from a “realist” relative gains scenario, states would gladly let other states fail in order to increase their own success. However, globalization has connected all states together and introduced some semblance of morality into politics that makes it in a countries best interest to develop the world sustainably

by

Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Internet governance is an issue growing in importance and it will continue to grow as the internet becomes the primary means by which people communicate. The internet is a method for sharing information that exists transnationally. How do policy makers and interested parties regulate a mechanism of communication that has no physical form? Internet governance is the tricky development of institutions, procedures, and rules that regulate how the internet is used across the world. One of the first questions is who gets to be involved in the process of governing the internet?

There are a variety of stakeholders. First and foremost are states, as they regulate most global interactions and must preserve the rule of law, even over the internet. Other stakeholders would be the corporations and businesses that benefit most from internet traffic and usage. Technology and information companies have a major stake in the successful regulation of the internet and achieving their goals without being restricted. The people themselves are major stakeholders as they are the average users who depend on the internet for daily use.

Internet governance plays a major role in sustainable development in terms of providing equal access to information for all. Without government regulation, the corporations who provide access to information and communicative technologies could pick and choose recipients based on whoever can pay more. While this trend already exists to some degree, government regulation ensures that corporations cannot monopolize internet access. Equal access to the internet is essential for developing communities to communicate effectively, encourage investment, build industry, and strengthen education.

There a variety of platforms and forums that promote and facilitate discussion on internet governance and how to manage it in the future. Netmundial was a meeting for the various stakeholders in internet governance to come together and discuss ideas that took place in Brazil in 2014. The meeting placed states and other international multistakeholders. The focus of the meeting was to create balance among the various stakeholders and foster open communication between all of the players. There is also the Internet Governance Forum, which is a multistakeholder platform that encourages discussion regarding public policy issues and the internet.

by

Digital Divides

The digital divide problem strongly relates to last week’s topic regarding rapid communication technologies.  It is a problem we see mainly in poor rural areas and economically depressed inner cities.  The digital divide refers to the gap in access to communication technologies and the internet, and this is a problem many development practitioners and multinational organizations have had to deal with.  This is because it’s been widely accepted that, for development to occur, this gap needs to close.

Many argue that the world got along just fine before the digital age.  This may be true, but we have now reached an era where these modern technologies have become seamlessly integrated into every aspect of our lives, and that fact simply cannot be ignored.  People can now finish tasks and achieve goals so much more rapidly, and the exchange of knowledge taking place over these systems is beneficial to many.  That being said, much of the world is being left out of these processes that enhance quality of life since they don’t have access.

It is important to look at the digital divide as a whole, but also through the lens of the different demographics being excluded.  As discussed in other weeks of the class, recognizing the intersectionality of different demographics in development speeds up the process.  We see gaps in the digital divide between different minorities, and also based on gender and economic status, for example.  A lot of people overlook the fact or simply don’t know about how large the digital divide actually is, but we have entered an era where these types of technologies are almost needed to survive.

One of the biggest challenges to getting access for everyone, especially in rural areas, is devising ways to put in the needed infrastructure for such technologies to be usable in the first place.  Many of these areas don’t have electricity, fiberoptic cables, computers, or even roads for deliveries.  There are many things we take for granted and don’t even think about that make access nearly impossible in many excluded areas, so work on this needs to be done from the ground up.

by

ICTs and Sustainable Development

Communication technology is a crucial part, especially in this day and age, of successful development.  This has been demonstrated by documents like the Maitland Commission Report called the “Missing Link” that we read in class, as well as the WSIS+10 outcome document.  We’ve reached a point in society where communication technology is needed to function and participate in almost every aspect of life.  It has the ability to speed up and make more efficient every task we do from day to day, and contributes to quicker development.

The report called “The Missing Link” highlights the gap we see between certain demographics to rapid communication technology.  We commonly see disparities in access to this technology between the rich and the poor, urban and rural residents, and young or old people.  To give a sense of how big the gap really is, it is estimated that 75% of the world’s telephones are concentrated in only nine countries.

The poor and disadvantaged are excluding from contributing to development when they don’t have access to these technologies since they stimulate many social and economic activities in life.  The exchange of knowledge is a powerful tool.  An example we discussed in class was that a farmer without access to communication technology may fall behind on the latest farming methods or technologies.  They could also fall behind by being unaware of what the market prices for certain crops are, and that could result in earning less than they deserve.

Computer access specifically can help people by bringing to them information about job postings, or community resources they may have been previously unaware of.

The idea of knowledge sharing through this technology can specifically relate to my capstone on sustainable and reliable urban transportation.  As we know, adequate public transportation is required to live a sustainable and healthy lifestyle, and allows more people to contribute their talents to the development of society.  In developed cities, residents can use smartphone applications to get live updates on public transit arrivals and plan their commutes to work and school.  Those in underdeveloped cities or countries without access to these services may be left out of the equation, and will cause difficulties in securing a job or doing well in school, for example.

The WSIS+10 document explains that institutional changes will have to be made to fix this problem, like providing cheaper technology or installing infrastructure to allow the technology to be used.

by

Efficacy of Global Frameworks

The global frameworks that we have, like Millennial Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals, represent ways to see the “grand challenges” the world is currently facing.  The Millennial Development Goals made significant progress since 2000, but there was still a lot of disproportionate growth and improvement worldwide.  There was a lot of disparity in wealth, for example, when comparing rural and urban areas.

The Millennial Development Goals were wide in scope and did cover lots of different problems that needed to be tackled, however the indicators of progress and plans to continue forward were not specific enough.  There wasn’t a reliable method of measurement laid out, and were less comprehensive than the SDGs since they did not have specific action plans for each step in the process.  Another issue with the MDGs was the inability to get a good picture of the progress made after 15 years, since there was strong enough measuring and recording of the starting point in 2000.  They didn’t have much to compare to at the end of that timespan to see how far they had really gotten.  While some thought the goals provided a nice framework for the world to come together and see a concrete way to fix these problems, others said there were too many sectors of development covered and that many would be spread too thin.

Another big critique of the Millennial Development Goals is that there was hardly any mention of what the plan was to include persons with disabilities.  15% of the world’s population lives with some form of disability, and when all those people are left out of the development conversation and unable to contribute their talents, everyone is at a loss.  The SDGs have paid much more attention to this problem, and the next step is also to focus more on the intersectionalities involved in development problems.  For example, women with disabilities will be affected differently by certain situations then children with disabilities.

The SDGs added a lot more goals and are much more comprehensive which is a huge positive, however the critics who said the MDGs were focused on too many different things at once certainly still remain.

by

Development Theory

Development theory is a difficult subject, because it is oftentimes purely subjective.  It is a concept that’s difficult to define, in terms of what it is and where we draw the line of whether a country is developed or underdeveloped.  Furthermore, the question of who gets the authority to make these decisions arises.

There are a lot of academic voices in this field, one being Amartya Sen.  His piece called “Development as Freedom,” is one of the most well-known development theories.  He explains that human rights and freedoms go hand in hand in the process of developing a country, and that freedoms are needed before any development will occur.  His theories were considered controversial, because before Sen most development practitioners pushed the idea that economic stimulation was the right way to go about development.  According to Sen, creating personal and human freedoms paves the way for development to thrive.  More specifically, he says for development to happen we need to provide social and economic freedoms, and political and civil rights.  In underdeveloped countries, missing freedoms that we see affecting the development process may include lack of representation in government for multiple voices to be heard, or lack of access to health care and education, for example.  Furthermore, since all freedoms are generally interconnected, people must have the rights to basic freedoms if they also hope to gain civil and political rights like the aforementioned examples of health and education.  A strong interconnected web of such freedoms can build each other up.

Sen argues that democratic governments speed up development because more voices are heard, so decisions are better informed and serve society in a more efficient and positive way.  I believe Sen’s definition would be appreciated by the UN, especially in the current context of pushing for multistakeholderism and focusing on the intersectionality of development. Traditionally, development levels were measured by per capita income.  The reason to look at many intersecting factors is because, while a family may earn more than the poverty line, the infrastructure someone is surrounded by that they use to access society may be lacking, which is half the battle of development.

by

Multistakeholder Internet Governance

In this week’s class we discussed the fact that no one “owns” the internet and because it is used by people all over the world and surpasses the level of any nation state, its governance is quite complicated. With the internet, states are able to interact in a global sphere but without the guidance or rules that come with an all-encompassing governing body. Although the internet originated in the United States through DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), they only owned the infrastructure not the protocols. The internet was initially designed as and intended to be a research and military communication mechanism that could withstand a nuclear attack. However, after the National Science Foundation invested in the internet, its use rapidly expanded and it became internationally commercialized with the help of companies. Naturally, the more people that used the internet, the more valuable it became to everyone as a global resource, but still a lack of internet governance was evident. “Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet” (Class Notes). In 1992, a movement started to institutionalize the process in a way that would provide private governance of the internet rather than by a government. This also internationalized the internet further. Now in every country you can determine who owns the telecom infrastructure but the internet remains unowned. In 1998, a nonprofit organization called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) was set up in California as a major experiment in internet governance. It was a stable and secure regime with all stakeholders having a role to play and serving its purpose, but it didn’t go far enough in further developing the internet, so there remained pressure to create new forces and a multistakeholder system (Internet Society).

After the 2005 Summit in Tunis, the WSIS attempted to tackle this challenge by creating a multistakeholder organization called the IGF (Internet Governance Forum). The IGF “serves to bring people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While there is no negotiated outcome, the IGF informs and inspires those with policy-making power in both the public and private sectors” (IGF). It was initially given a five year mandate and was renewed after the first. Now, the IGF continues to thrive with its persistent governing structure as a multistakeholder advisory group and has established dynamic coalitions that discuss and share information and best practices with one another. Therefore, to date the IGF has been the most successful creation for instilling “ a common understanding of how to maximize Internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise” (IGF).

by

Bridging the Digital Divides

The MacBride Commission Report titled “Many Voices One World” sponsored by UNESCO found that a majority of modern communication problems exist between the global North and South as a result of an imbalance in access to telecommunication technologies and as a result, an imbalance of media (often favoring the North) which then impacts how we perceive the information we have access to. 

In response, the overarching goal of telecommunications policy is to ensure universal service and equal access to affordable telephone service in all communities as well as to ensure all communities are being reached with access to broadband for more and better communication. With digital divides, the issue is not just access to these technologies but also if there is access to broadband (high speed and quality) or to mobile access or just within the home, additional markers of truly equal access. The digital divide is defined by the regional, age, gender, and racial/ethnic divides in access to telecommunication technology. In addition, the divide includes access to broadband vs. narrowband, the knowledge divide regarding ICTs as well as a result of a lack of them, and a skill divide surrounding digital technologies.

This is alarming in that as shown through WSIS and its ancestor-documents, access to good ICTs is crucial for development, especially regarding the increase in access to information that they provide, not just at an economic level but at a social and political level as well. For example, in tying back to education, children with access and the ability to use computers and broadband Internet have an automatic increase in knowledge and accessibility to the world. In response, the main steps that can be taken are training of teachers on how to be able to teach students to use technology while also recognizing that children have skills that they are able to teach their teachers, using technology to build capacity. In an increasingly globalized world and a knowledge-based economy, as UNESCO has worked towards, it is crucial that we level the playing field by closing the digital divide.

Finally, an interesting aspect of closing the digital divide involves learning how to utilize cyberinfrastucture to its fullest potential. When we are able to fully understand and utilize the technology we have access to, we have the opportunity to work in global virtual teams across distance, time zones, and cultures. For inclusive sustainable development, this presents a wealth of opportunities from increased information on disabilities for diagnosis, treatment or coping, to increased collaboration among persons with disabilities as a stakeholder group, allowing for a more cohesive and beneficial representation at UN conferences and as a result, in official documents. As we continue to bridge the divide in a world where our lives are so closely intertwined with the digital, the possibilities are endless and exciting for development and beyond.

by

ICTs as a Tool for Accessibility

Out of the 1985 Maitland Report, the ITU identified the fundamental importance of ICTs, especially telephone access for social and development access for uses such as the need for bankers to assess credit, farmers to find the best price, and general back and forth communication. In the report, they called the lack of ICTs in developing countries the “missing link” for development. In framing the importance of ICTs in this manner, the report was troubling in that it saw the developed world as having it right without taking into account developing world-specific solutions, opening up the potential for leapfrogging or the skipping of important steps.

In response, NTIA’s Falling Through the Net document better outlined that people are falling through the net even in developed countries, looking at the US where huge discrepancies existed between rural and urban areas, old and young people, and based on education level, race, and ethnicity. The document outlined the key discrepancies while in response to the Maitland report noting that the developed world does not in fact have all of the answers.

Finally, in response, WSIS was convened organized by the ITU and convened by the UN first in 2003 and again in 2005 with the goal (and eventual results) of seeing less of a developed dominated process while still reinforcing that ICTs are critical to development. At WSIS + 10, ten years later, a significant amount of progress was identified regarding an increase in accessibility to telecommunications in development.

In tying ICTs to sustainable development, we don’t have to look far as there is a direct connection between WSIS, the SDGs, NUA, CRPD, and WSIS + 10, including an SDG matrix that outlines ICT related goals including a desire to make these conferences more accessible and making the internet more accessible for persons with disabilities. While there is still a long way to go for full inclusion of persons with disabilities, the opening of a conversation on how ICTs can be used for increased involvement such as through the use of screen readers on conference websites or opportunities for remote participation for those physically unable to navigate the conference space (for example by being unable to take a wheelchair and medical equipment on a plane), we see a crucial first step in bridging the inclusion and access gap with the help of ICTs.