- Email: [email protected]
Broadening the discussion
Rejoinders The following rejoinders continue the debate on telecommunications and economic development in the Third World. The first, by Heather Hudson, is a response to Bjom Wellenius's article published in the March 1984 issue and calls for a wider discussion of the issues to convey the need for greater invesDwent in telecommunications. In ~ second, Geoffrey WaJsham on David Cleevely's article in this issue. Walsham believes that Cleevely has established the usefulness of his methodology and encourages the testing of his approach in a different context.
Broadening the discussion Wellenius's article 1 provides a succinct summary of the importance of telecommunications in the development process and some basic strategies for telecommunications planners, including what might be called a telecommunication planners' research toolbox'. I have no quarrel with Wellenius's points (except that Box 2 is a very large mouthful), but there are implications of his proposals that should not be ignored. First, although the importance of telecommunications for development must be brought to the attention of national planners, as Wellenius states, the background documentation and research which he recommends will be prepared by telecommunications staff. Most telecommunications administrations do not have personnel trained to carry out these types of socioeconomic research, and many cannot free existing staff even to analyse data already in their records. The implications are that telecommunications administrations need to include social scientists in their planning units, and social scientists in turn need to learn about telecommunications. As an interim solution, administrations may be able to turn to other government departments to find researchers who can assist in these tasks, or they may seek assistance from universities or other research institutions. Representatives of several telecommunications administrations stated that they would welcome assistance in documenting the role of telecommunications in the development of their countries, during the regional seminars on 'Telecommunications for
162
Development' held by the ITU during World Communications Year. A n alternative or complementary approach would be for national governments to establish departments or ministries of communications which would include planning and evaluation sections staffed by social scientists as well as engineers. This model has been implemented in Canada, and emulated by several other countries. Secondly, Wellenius's research strategies do not emphasize indirect benefits or externalities, which are among the most important considerations in assessing the contribution of telecommunications to development. Simple techniques can also be used to estimate the benefits of telecommunications use for business activities, administration and social services. Third, one of the areas in which we do need more research is in the identification of factors which combine with telecommunications to contribute to development - including
other types of infrastructure such as roads and public utilities, economic development activities, well administered development institutions, etc. We need to be able to identify what preconditions or coconditions are necessary to ensure maximum benefits from t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s investments, so that development planners can determine where and when to concentrate their telecommunications investments. Finally, to reach national planners, as Wellenius advocates, we need to take our discussions out of telecommunications journals to a wider audience. One major effort to heighten the visibility of the need for greater investment in telecommunications in the developing world is the Independent Commission for Worldwide Telecommunications Development, becoming known as the Maitland Commission for its chairman, Sir Donald Maitland. Established by a resolution of the 1982 ITU Plenipotentiary in Nairobi, the Commission includes senior representatives from industrialized and developing countries who will draft a report in 1984 to identify strategies for increasing telecommunications investment in the developing world.
Heather E. Hudson College of Communication University of Texas Austin, TX, USA 1Biota Wellenius, 'On the role of telecommunications in development', Telecommunications Policy, Vol 8, No 1, March 1984, pp 54-66.
Regional structure and telecommunications planning Cleevely ~ rightly argues that an understanding of spatial structure and its r e l a t i o n s h i p to e c o n o m i c activity would be of considerable help in deciding where to augment telephone service provision in the LDCs and in determining the contribution of telecommunications to regional developm e n t . H e suggests a p a r t i c u l a r approach based on central place theory and his results from this approach applied to two regions of
Kenya are interesting. Of particular note is the relatively strong relationship between telephone demand at a given location and the number of places in the hierarchy which are dependent on that location. A good fit for such a simple model is an encouraging indicator of the potential for the approach. In this rejoinder to Cleevely's article, I would like to do two things; first, to note a number of qualifications to the work carried out
TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY June 1984
Broadening the discussion Wellenius's article 1 provides a succinct summary of the importance of telecommunications in the development process and some basic strategies for telecommunications planners, including what might be called a telecommunication planners' research toolbox'. I have no quarrel with Wellenius's points (except that Box 2 is a very large mouthful), but there are implications of his proposals that should not be ignored. First, although the importance of telecommunications for development must be brought to the attention of national planners, as Wellenius states, the background documentation and research which he recommends will be prepared by telecommunications staff. Most telecommunications administrations do not have personnel trained to carry out these types of socioeconomic research, and many cannot free existing staff even to analyse data already in their records. The implications are that telecommunications administrations need to include social scientists in their planning units, and social scientists in turn need to learn about telecommunications. As an interim solution, administrations may be able to turn to other government departments to find researchers who can assist in these tasks, or they may seek assistance from universities or other research institutions. Representatives of several telecommunications administrations stated that they would welcome assistance in documenting the role of telecommunications in the development of their countries, during the regional seminars on 'Telecommunications for
162
Development' held by the ITU during World Communications Year. A n alternative or complementary approach would be for national governments to establish departments or ministries of communications which would include planning and evaluation sections staffed by social scientists as well as engineers. This model has been implemented in Canada, and emulated by several other countries. Secondly, Wellenius's research strategies do not emphasize indirect benefits or externalities, which are among the most important considerations in assessing the contribution of telecommunications to development. Simple techniques can also be used to estimate the benefits of telecommunications use for business activities, administration and social services. Third, one of the areas in which we do need more research is in the identification of factors which combine with telecommunications to contribute to development - including
other types of infrastructure such as roads and public utilities, economic development activities, well administered development institutions, etc. We need to be able to identify what preconditions or coconditions are necessary to ensure maximum benefits from t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s investments, so that development planners can determine where and when to concentrate their telecommunications investments. Finally, to reach national planners, as Wellenius advocates, we need to take our discussions out of telecommunications journals to a wider audience. One major effort to heighten the visibility of the need for greater investment in telecommunications in the developing world is the Independent Commission for Worldwide Telecommunications Development, becoming known as the Maitland Commission for its chairman, Sir Donald Maitland. Established by a resolution of the 1982 ITU Plenipotentiary in Nairobi, the Commission includes senior representatives from industrialized and developing countries who will draft a report in 1984 to identify strategies for increasing telecommunications investment in the developing world.
Heather E. Hudson College of Communication University of Texas Austin, TX, USA 1Biota Wellenius, 'On the role of telecommunications in development', Telecommunications Policy, Vol 8, No 1, March 1984, pp 54-66.
Regional structure and telecommunications planning Cleevely ~ rightly argues that an understanding of spatial structure and its r e l a t i o n s h i p to e c o n o m i c activity would be of considerable help in deciding where to augment telephone service provision in the LDCs and in determining the contribution of telecommunications to regional developm e n t . H e suggests a p a r t i c u l a r approach based on central place theory and his results from this approach applied to two regions of
Kenya are interesting. Of particular note is the relatively strong relationship between telephone demand at a given location and the number of places in the hierarchy which are dependent on that location. A good fit for such a simple model is an encouraging indicator of the potential for the approach. In this rejoinder to Cleevely's article, I would like to do two things; first, to note a number of qualifications to the work carried out
TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY June 1984