1

Modelling for the Diffusion of ICTs in the Economies of Africa’s Developing Countries

By: Tibuhinda Ngozi and Kosheek Sewchurran

University of Cape Town

Abstract

This paper addresses the shortcomings of the perspectives driving applied ICTs initiatives for

development in developing countries of Africa. My claim in this paper is that the efforts

underway in applied ICTs for development in Africa as a measure to address digital divide on

the continent, have no capacity to immerse the technology in the economic functions and

processes of Africa’s developing countries. A content analysis conducted on the stock of

ICT4D projects’ driving concerns and values reinforce the claim. I argue in this paper that,

the efforts are developing and sustaining a technologically trapped and persistently foreign

dependent island of countries on the African continent, as evidenced by the visible lack of

Africa’s innovative contribution in the production of ICTs for instance, or innovative

application of ICTs in her economies. To get out of this scenario, it is suggested in this paper

that the developing countries in Africa need to develop a focus on the productivity impacts of

ICTs; by enhancing the emergence of innovation complementaries, complementary

investments, and sectoral linkages in the diffusion processes of ICTs. For that to succeed, I

suggest for the conception of ICTs in the capacity of general purpose technologies (GPTs).

Keywords: Digital divide, Complementary investments, Innovation complementaries,

Sectoral linkages, General purpose technologies, Social innovation machinery.

1. Introduction

A weak position of firms in the creation of the necessary complementary investments,

innovation complementaries, and inter-sectoral linkages in developing countries in Africa is

a major setback in the diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICTs - here

in after used interchangeably with ‘technology’) in those countries. This scenario affects the

diffusion process of technology in the economic functions of the continent. The situation

results in a skewed appropriation of technology in favour of its informational dissemination

impacts. On the other hand, technology assimilation for the promotion of factor productivity

growth and contribution to output remains very low and narrow in Africa’s economies. This

paper acknowledges the efforts being made in applied ICTs, where ‘applied ICTs’ refers to

the ICT based innovations and initiatives of the world information society and ICT4D,

aiming at pushing for the uptake of technology in the technologically deprived societies with

the aim of enhancing their livelihoods. This acknowledgement however, is not without

criticism in the focus of this paper.

It is claimed in this paper that, although pragmatic efforts have focused on inducing and

promoting the adoption of ICTs for their purportedly impacts related to development, the

approaches have ignored very important aspects of diffusing ICTs in the socio-economic

processes of the respective societies. The initiatives seem to have extensively concentrated on

the people centred outcomes such as access and use of ICTs (WSIS, 2003; ITU, 2005, 2009)

without paying attention to developing root innovativeness in the host communities to

2

support the emergence of innovations locally. This situation is not without a background.

This paper identifies two main historical factors to it as expressed in the subsequent sections

after the definitions of the operationalized concepts.

The rest of the paper is presented in nine sections. The next section presents the conception of

the operationalized concepts, followed by Section 3 on the historical background to the

limited uptake of ICTs in the economic processes of underdeveloped countries in Africa.

Section 4 describes the perspectives for the diffusion of ICTs in the economic processes,

while Section 5 is the statement of the problem. Sections 6 and 7 present the design of the

study and discussion of findings respectively. Section 8 dwells on the modelling activity for

the diffusion of ICTs, while the contributions to knowledge made and the conclusions are

presented in Sections 9 and 10 respectively.

2. Operationalized Concepts

Digital Divide Digital divide is an evolving concept, and there have been a number of pertinent definitions.

OECD (2001) defined ‘digital divide’ as being referring to the gap between individuals,

households, businesses and geographical areas at different socio-economic levels with regard

both, to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and

to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities. ITU (2007) asserts that digital

divide is to be seen as a ‘discrepancy’ gap between more and less developed communities.

Tongia and Subrahamanian (2006) conceptualize digital divide in the context of the under-

served people who lack physical access to connectivity, and social and political avenues for

ICT participation. Steyn (2011) subdivides ‘digital divide’ into categories of: (1) operational

divide, (2) cultural divide, and (3) political divide. The first is said to be about the availability

of ICT and access to ICT systems; the second is about some groups lacking either

technological or social access to dominant social networks; and the third is about exclusion of

some groups or individuals.

In our observations, ‘digital divide’ should be stretched to include an ‘innovation divide’ as

well. The inclusion of this category of divide in the gap should enhance the pragmatic

approaches beyond just targeting opening-up opportunities for access and use of ICTs as per

the OECD (2001), or empowering people to discover opportunities for social cohesion

(Gomez & Pather, 2010).

Innovation We project an understanding of 'innovation' in this study as being about the generation and

adoption of new concepts. As such, it involves creativity, learning, and the objects of creation

and learning. The understanding also takes the view that in societies there can be organized

systems for innovation, through which efforts are directed towards desired outcomes. This is

an extension on other similar definitions such as 'innovation is a ‘learning process’ by which

“new knowledge is produced or existing elements of knowledge are combined in new ways”

(Edquist & Hommen (1999, p.65); innovation is the ‘creation of value from

knowledge’(Gault, 2010); innovation is “the adoption of an internally generated or

purchased device, system, policy, program, process, product or service, that is new to the

adopting organization” (Meyer, 2000, p.329). Rogers (2003) express innovation as an idea,

practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption; while

Mulgan (2006) defines an innovation as the outcome of deliberate efforts towards developing

and shaping an idea, a product, a process, or a method; and refers to innovations as tools.

3

Information and Communications Technology for Development (ICT4D)

There is a range of perspectives of the term ICT4D (Information and Communications

Technology for Development) in literature. Some sources refer to ICT4D as the use of ICTs

to solve developmental problems, or as the opportunities that exist for ICTs as an agent of

development (Sutinen & Tedre, 2010). Steyn (2011) views ICT4D as being about

“overcoming [the] digital divide operationally” (p.20) so as to enable the deprived

communities to appropriate ICTs and access ICT systems. Tongia and Subrahamanian (2006)

see ICT4D as solving the problem of development through innovations in computers,

connectivity, content and human capacity.Tongia and Subrahamanian (2006) describe ICT4D

as a dynamic process with goals that shift over time, and see ICT4D as “inherently dependent

on the goals of the stakeholders and their ability to participate in defining the right

development problems to be solved” (p.202).

The definitions just tabled have a connotation of ICT4D being about the use of ICTs by

practitioners to confront digital deprivation, or solving developmental problems in the

socially and economically disadvantaged places (Klein, 2009; Steyn, 2011; Sutinen & Tedre,

2010). While we maintain this worldview when we use the term in this paper, we suggest that

ICT4D should not be seen as a weapon in the hands of practitioners, but a context in which

actors are both the practitioners, and host individuals/communities innovatively defining their

ICT related concerns and values for their own life and economic achievements.

3. Historical factors limiting the Uptake of ICTs in Economic processes of

underdeveloped economies in Africa

Two factors involved in limiting the uptake, or assimilation of ICTs in the underdeveloped

economies are: (1) the perspectives of the community of practitioners in applied ICTs, and

(2) the limited scope of the approaches against digital divide in applied ICTs, as

conceptualized in the existing understanding(s) of ICT4D.

Perspectives of the community of practitioners

The first factor is reflected in the deliverables of the ICT forums on the world information

society, such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)’s organized world

summit on information society (WSIS). These include the declarations on addressing digital

divide and the famous millennium development goals (MDGs); and their respective action

lines (ITU, 2005). The perspectives relate peoples’ underdevelopment related problems such

as poor health, poor education, low income (GDP) etc. to lack of access to, and low level of

use of ICTs to facilitate information sharing (WSIS, 2003; ITU, 2005). Such perspectives in

turn have led to short term impacts focussed approaches in interventions, which are not

rooted in local host economies.

Pertinent to the identified factor, the desire of the developers, practitioners and sponsor

stakeholders who happen to form a force, externalized to the contexts of relevance in applied

ICTs has been to witness the outcomes of their ingenuity (in design) and justification of

financial outlays respectively. This has also reinforced the short term impacts focus and

commitments in applied ICTs. In reality, foreign-agency-driven initiatives for addressing

‘digital divide’, lack provisions for transition to contextually rooted innovations to sustain the

initiatives, which means that social innovations based on the perspectives of the host

communities are not cultivated. Apparently, the host communities of ICT4D initiatives rarely

develop the necessary ‘agency’ and capacity for generating complementary innovations in

support of mainstream ICTs.

4

Limited scope in applied ICTs

The conceptual contributions of the technology elite community on digital divide and ICT4D

is seen in this paper to have impacted on the conception of the initiatives for addressing

livelihood and poverty issues with technology. The initiatives for the deployment of

technology in Africa’s underdeveloped economies have dominantly focussed on

operationalizing the consumption of ICTs for their prescribed intrinsic values, specifically

information processing and dissemination (ITU, 2005, 2009; WSIS, 2003) for social

empowerment and cohesion (Gomez & Pather, 2010). This has resulted in the aspects of

enhancing technology ‘acceptance’, ‘use’, and ‘access’ and targeting human development

indices in terms of access points established for instance, or numbers visiting internet services

outlet points etc. being the main agenda of ICT4D stakeholders.

Although some human development indices are perceived to be realizable if target

communities ‘accept’ and ‘use’ the ICT interventions (Alampay, 2006; Gigler, 2004; Smith,

Spence, & Rashid, 2011), the targeting of such indices face a danger of ending up leading to

concentrating on short-term incidences only. For socio-economic transformational ends, such

incidences need to be theoretically and practically enriched for long-term economic

performance, as called for by other sources such as Morales-Gómez and Melesse (1998). In

the perspectives of this paper, human development and economic performance are inter-

related. Consequently, even short term human development indices need provisions to

translate into long-term economic development and social transformation. To get that

achieved, quality labour and improved productivity are the values that applied ICTs should

seek to reinforce.

4. Different Perspectives for the Diffusion of ICTs in the Economic Processes of

Underdeveloped Countries

A review of literature on the emergence and pervasiveness of ICTs around the world suggest

that ICTs have characteristics of general purpose technologies (GPTs). GPTs can be

conceptualized as technologies whose impacts are not confined to any economic or social

sector, and thus can be realized in many forms and settings (Bresnahan & Trajtenberg, 1995;

Cette, Mairesse & Kocoglu, 2005; Hamel, 2010; Helpman & Trajtenberg, 1996; Jalava &

Pohjola, 2007; Jovanovic & Rousseau, 2005; Rohman, 2012). GPTs are technologies that

tend to improve factor productivity across sectors, influence productivity growth, and

contribute to national product directly (Gretton et al., 2002; Gretton, Gali, & Parham, 2004;

Jalava & Pohjola, 2007). ICTs enhance factor productivity by complementing other capital

inputs, penetrating production processes refered to as ‘capital deepening’, and influencing

improvement in labour quality (Cette, Mairesse & Kocoglu, 2005; Getton et al., 2002).

GPTs have their characteristics which promote their diffusion and use in economies as

follows:

- They are propagated through innovation complementaries

- They are supported by complementary investments

- They extend beyond the sectors in which they emerge to lead to inter-sectoral

linkages.

GPTs are acknowledged as radical innovations that in many cases play the role of influencing

revolutionary changes that transform household lives and the way firms conduct businesses

(Dwivedi, Mustafee & Williams, 2009; Jovanovic & Rousseau, 2005).

5

Other descriptions regard such technologies as ‘major technologies in historic eras’ that have

been able to create sets of opportunities and constraints for innovative activities in other

major innovation lines (Castellacci, 2008). GPTs are known to be ‘enabling technologies’,

‘pervasive’, and capable of opening up new opportunities (Bresnahan & Trajtenberg, 1995;

David & Wright, 1999; Hamel, 2010; Helpman & Trajtenberg, 1996). GPTs are pervasive in

the sense that, after being produced in one sector of an economy, they are usually used as

inputs by other sectors, referred to as ‘the user sectors’, developing sectoral linkages in so

doing. The user sectors benefit from the GPTs trough two important inputs. One is that they

innovatively build upon the main GPTs, developing what is known as innovation

complementaries. The other is that they make the necessary investment in infrastructure and

human resources to support the GPT based innovations. These are then referred to as

complementary investments.

The studies conducted by Ngwenyama, Bollou, Andoh-Baidoo, & Morawczynski (2006) and

Indjikian & Siegel (2005) among others, reveal a positive correlation between investment in

ICT and economic growth for developed economies. However, contradicting findings exist

for similar studies conducted in under-developed economies in Africa (Ngwenyama et al.

2006; Steyn & Kirlidog, 2013).

In the views of this paper, applied ICT initiatives will be successful in ICTizing deprived

economies, thereafter generating respective positive correlations, if the uptake or diffusion

process of technology is complemented with capacity to generate contextual complementary

innovations. Those will then function to immerse technology in the economic processes,

coupled with the generation of the necessary supportive infrastructural investments for the

innovations. Such capacity should evolve from within the host communities’ bodies. This

paper refers to that capacity to innovate as ‘social innovation (SI)’ in contrast to where the

term is used as a reference to technological innovations conceived to address needs of social

reach in the communities of deprivation (see Section 2).

Much of the available literature on GPT is contextualized in the world of business

organizations, with reference to firms and industries as the main carriers of the respective

‘innovations’ and ‘investments’. The firms provide the necessary investments, and set

avenues for innovations. In so doing, the firms have driven the emergence and growth of ICT

innovations (Bresnahan & Trajtenberg, 1995; Helpman & Trajtenberg, 1996). In turn, ICTs

have overwhelmingly supported economic growth.

The immediate question coming to our minds is, can the firms, or the industry base

altogether, in underdeveloped economies of Africa be relied upon to generate the necessary

complementaries?

This question is tackled by taking a brief exploration of the stock markets, as an

approximation of the status of the industrial base in Africa.

The Status of an Industry Base in Africa’s Underdeveloped countries

Unfortunately, the industry in Africa’s underdeveloped countries is narrow and shallow

(Gibbon, 2001; Page, 2011, 2012). A clear evidence is observable in the comparison of

market capitalization data worldwide (Tables 1&2).

6

Table 1 Market Capitalization of Stock Markets Country-wise Globally

Country 2010 2011 2012

Country 2010 2011 2012

Africa

France 1,926.5 1,568.7 1,823.3

Botswana 4.1 4.1 4.6

Germany 1,429.7 1,184.5 1,486.3

Cote

d'Ivoire 7.1 6.3 7.8

United

Kingdom 3,107.0 2,903.2 3,019.5

Egypt,

Rep. 82.5 48.7 58.0

Netherlands 661.2 594.7 651.0

Ghana 3.5 3.1 3.5

Norway 250.9 219.2 252.9

Kenya 14.5 10.2 14.8

Poland 190.2 138.2 177.7

Malawi 1.4 1.4 0.8 Sweden 581.2 470.1 560.5

Morocco 69.2 60.1 52.6

America

Namibia 1.2 1.2 1.3

Brazil 1,545.6 1,229.0 1,229.8

Nigeria 50.9 39.3 56.4

Canada 2,160.2 1,906.6 2,016.1

South

Africa 635.3 523.0 612.3

Chile 341.6 270.3 313.3

Tanzania 1.3 1.5 1.8

Costa Rica 1.4 1.4 2.0

Uganda 1.8 7.7 7.3

USA 17,139.0 15,640.7 18,668.3

Zambia 2.8 4.0 3.0

Zimbabwe 11.5 10.9 11.8

Asia

Europe

Bangladesh 15.7 23.5 17.5

Belgium 269.3 229.9

300.1

China 4,762.8 3,389.1 3,697.4

Denmark 231.7 179.5 224.9 Hong Kong 1,079.6 889.6 1,108.1

Finland 118.2 143.1 158.7

India 1,615.9 1,015.4 1,263.3

Russia 1,004.5 796.4 874.7

Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/CM.MKT.LCAP.CD

Table 2 Listings on Stock Exchanges in Africa (2014)

Economy Location Listings Link

Côte d'Ivoire Abidjan 39 BRVM

Algeria Algiers 5 SGBV

Botswana Gaborone 44 BSE

Cameroon Douala 2 DSX

Egypt Cairo 833 EGX

Ghana Accra 34 GSE

Kenya Nairobi 64 NSE

Libya Tripoli 7 LSM

Malawi Blantyre 14 MSE

Mauritius Port Louis 88 SEM

Morocco Casablanca 81

Casa

SE

Namibia Windhoek 32 NSX

Nigeria Lagos 223 ASCE

Rwanda Kigali 5 NSE

Seychelles Victoria 4 RSE

7

South Africa Johannesburg 402 JSE

Sudan Khartoum 54 KSE

Swaziland Mbabane 10 SSX

Tanzania

Dar es

Salaam 17 DSE

Tunisia Tunis 56 BVMT

Uganda Kampala 17 USE

Zambia Lusaka 16 LuSE

Zimbabwe Harare 81 ZSE

Source: www.world-stock-exchanges.net/africa.html

The averages of market capitalization of corporate stocks listed on country bourses

worldwide (until 2012 as per the available data, Table 1) are used to approximate for the

capital investment depths across world economies. For Africa, with the exception of South

Africa (at USD 612.3 billion), market capitalization is as low as USD 0.8 billion (Malawi),

with the highest at USD 58.0 billion (Egypt) for the last year in the series (2012). By

comparison in Europe, the lowest value is USD 158.7 billion (Finland) against highest of

USD 3,019.5 billion (UK). The number of stock market listed companies in Africa range

between 2 companies (Cameroon) and 88 (Mauritius), with the exceptions of Egypt (833

companies), Nigeria (223 companies) and South Africa (402). The latter three countries

display exceptionally high bourse listings compared with the rest on the continent.

Identified in this analysis is a confirmation of a weak industry base for producing, absorbing,

and reproducing ICT innovations, and supporting innovation processes with resources in

Africa. It can be implied as well, that digitally deprived economies have an inherent

characteristic of the digital divide itself - the technological base in many sectors of economies

is very low. It is a feature of these economies to be based on light (i.e. low level of intensity

and sophistication) innovations.

Obviously, developing a framework for the realization of GPT potentials in such a scenario is

significantly challenging.

Having identified the limiting factors for the diffusion of ICTs to take effect in the economic

processes of underdeveloped countries, we turn to the exploration of practice for the inherent

features and potentials for turning around the trend. We begin by stating the problem,

followed by empirical observations.

5. Statement of the Problem

The main concern of the presented study was that the perspectives at the foundation of the

deployment of ICTs in developing countries undermine the diffusion process of technology

that would lead to its pertinent long-term economic benefits in developing countries. Not only

that, but they also affect the ways in which stakeholders for the global information society

engage themselves in influencing the diffusion process. That said, there is a need for adequate

theoretical foundations to appropriately guide the ICT deployment and application initiatives

for effective social development in Africa’s developing countries. In the other words,

theoretical contributions in the discipline of information systems are needed to explain the

relationships between long-term impacts of ICT and societies, and the frameworks for

practice to realize the impacts.

8

This paper reports the outcome of the exploration for the conceptions surrounding applied

ICT processes in theory and practice, for the objective of gaining an understanding on how

the improved approaches for applied ICT can be achieved. The paper looks into the ways by

which local communities and their governments in Africa’s underdeveloped countries can

play a role in cultivating the enhancement of ICT to promote productivity, like it has

happened in the places that have advanced to the levels of commanding technologies.

6. Design/Methodology/approach

The paper is based on an empirical qualitative study. The textual data were mined from the

ITU-WSIS Stocktaking and the IDRS databases. The databases function as a repository for

the ICT4D based projects, which comprise the main initiatives made by the International

organizational stakeholders including sponsors, in the body of the United Nations to address

digital divide worldwide. Content analysis techniques were applied in the analysis of data to

elicit constructs, concerns and values that in turn describe the perspectives of the community

of stakeholders as the drivers of applied ICTs.

7. Observations, Findings and Discussion

I. The leading force in the initiation and implementation of applied ICT interventions for

development in Africa’s underdeveloped economies is external to the contexts of application.

Figure 1 provides a clear evidence for the observation; where only 10% of the investigated

projects were endogenously initiated with the remaining 90% being initiated and

implemented by exogenous agencies. Consequently, the voices of State powers as agents of

citizens do not feature significantly. The situation is the same in the aspects of policy,

financial resources allocation, and the determination of the mode the interventions should

take. There is no adequate presence of local drive in the choice and initiation of ICT projects.

The body of international development community of practice, working with international

donor funding as favoured by the ITU/IDRC is the key player in the efforts to curb ‘digital

divide’, realize MDGs, and stimulate development.

Figure 1 Affiliation of Project's Lead Entities

II. The distribution of the initiatives is highly skewed (Figure 2), North and West Africa

hosting about two thirds of all the 346 analysed projects (particularly in Egypt which host 96

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

External 90% Local 10%

9

(39%). This can, to some extent, explain why the region is favourably advanced in the use of

digital technology in comparison to the region south of the Sahara.

Figure 2 Projects Distribution by Region on the Continent of Africa

III. The local based participation in the formulation of own solutions for own problems is

not featuring. Observed is a ‘clinical approach’ which happens to be short term and short

lived. However, an example from the idea carrying the project on ‘Collaboration for Health

Systems Analysis and Innovation (IDRC project no.106788, 2012) which contend that

“critical social problems need to be addressed in a more comprehensive way … for

sustainable results …. rather than a ….. clinical approach” negates that kind of approach

to social problems.

IV. The dominant focus of the initiatives for addressing digital divide and knowledge

poverty in Africa is on providing access and connectivity. In turn, the theme drives the

deployment of ‘telecentres’ as the solution to lack of ‘access’ and ‘connectivity’.

At the macro level, the practices for the deployment of ICTs fall in four main classes:

i. Technical innovations which have included investment in telecentres, e-governance

systems; web portals for governments, youth and women; and investment in digital

communication infrastructure.

ii. Providing public ‘access’ to ICTs and ‘connectivity’ to ‘knowledge’ via internet as

a solution to digital marginalization.

iii. Promoting the use of ICTs via support for deployment in small businesses and social

portals. Assumption of digital technology uptake as having a decisive role in

promoting economic growth.

iv. A focus on the transformation approach for community changes through ‘technology

transfer’ to the deprived communities. This goes with an implicit assumption that the

poor people are probably poor because they are ‘digitally excluded’

V. There were instances of government role playing to support the growth of the private

sector, specifically small and medium enterprises; while other indigenous activities such as

agriculture and fisheries are not addressed.

VI. The development of ICT sector itself in developing countries before it can support

development is not a theme in practice. The tendency at the moment, though not explicitly

0

50

100

150

NA WA EA SA

150

57 37

102

Number of Projects

Number of Projects

10

stated, is an implicit dependence on foreign activists such as the ITU, IDRC, WB, and other

international organizations.

There is no enough evidence in practice to show the presence of significant institutional role

playing in underdeveloped countries for the promotion of national innovation systems for

endogenous motivation of development and use of ICTs.

VII. Creating capacity to exploit ICT is a challenging area not adequately dealt with in

applied ICT for development efforts. This is not just about ‘training users’ as widely spelt in

such efforts. The issue is about creating linkages between economies, technology and

understanding the related services. The excerpt below is a clear evidence for the challenge.

“As the presence and influence of information and communication technologies

(ICTs) continues to widen and deepen, so too does its impact on economic

development. However, much work needs to be done before the linkages between

economic development and ICTs can be understood in a systematic and

meaningful manner. …..….to expand the scope of conventional investigation

beyond the telecommunications industry to include other vertically integrated

components of the ICT sector such as manufacturing and services” (IDRC

Project Number 1051227 ‘Statistical Compilation of the ICT Sector and Policy

Analysis’)

VIII. Evidently missing in practice are:

i. Support for pervasiveness of ICT in capacity of GPT: The design end is not

charged to work with economic bases. ‘Development’ is equated to ‘use of ICTs’,

while ICTs are not connected to the indigenous people’s economic activities.

ii. Support for the development of innovation complementaries: This is about

operational interventions that have worked to stimulate, or catalyse innovations in the

aspects of a society or economy leading to the diffusion of an ICT based intervention.

For instance, promoting social creativity, promoting imaginativeness, creating gaps

for ICTs in manufacturing or business etc. as a prerequisite to inventing things which

utilize the products of ICT interventions, such as ICT aided processes.

iii. Local driven concerns and values: There is a complete lack of locally driven,

inward looking SI process in the whole scenario of deploying ICTs in Africa’s

underdeveloped countries for bridging the digital divide, curbing knowledge poverty

and establishing knowledge economy.

The practice part in ICT interventions in Africa is focussed on providing solutions to

problems exogenously defined, and not building local capacity for generating

solutions to locally identified and defined problems in the local understanding.

iv. Support for the development of infrastructural inputs for the mainstream

ICT-GPT innovation: Having provisions for removing bottlenecks for the

application of mainstream innovation. For instance: Developing skills for the

establishment of ICT based institutions (R&D), building up a resource capacity for

innovations etc.

v. Opportunities for inter-sectoral uptakes and linkages: Having applicability in

multiple sectors which are inter-linked such as farm inputs manufacturing and

agriculture. Investment in technology (exemplified in the insistence on digital

11

communication infrastructure) lacks corresponding efforts in synergies such as

information systems for health, e-governance and transparency, education etc.

The findings of the study are utilized in the next section to conceptualize the modelling

activity for the proposed focussed process of ICT diffusion in underdeveloped countries.

8 Modelling for GPT

Following-up on the findings is a consideration of the framework to address the diffusion of

ICTs in the core economic processes of underdeveloped countries. The framework is aiming

at filling the evidenced lack of a strong platform of firms which could supposedly function as

the main carrier of ICTs diffusion, and the lack of innovation base in African countries. The

framework is also expected to fill the revealed diffusion gap of ICTs that practice in ICT4D

has so far failed to address.

To tackle the challenge of frameworking for GPT potentials, we take perspectives from social

theories. Literature on social theory informs that a social unit, such as a society, can respond

to internally or externally induced changes for short-term, or long-term adaptations

(Schoderbek, Schoderbek, & Kefalas, 1990). According to Schoderbek and colleagues, short-

term changes are only related to contemporary functionings. They are not structural, meaning

that they do not result in the definitive structural long term modifications of the entities

concerned. The long-term response of a unit body may result in a body “structurally

modifying itself, or structurally modifying its environment” (Schoderbek et al., 1990, p.54).

It is a conviction of this paper that, among others, Sen’s capabilities approach is an

appropriate model by which constructs for generating communities’ and individuals’ long-

term transformative capacity to innovate can be advanced. This paper’s advanced construct in

relation to ICTs diffusion is a ‘social innovation capacity’. Starting at the grassroots, an

individual’s recognised concerns and values compel her to make choices on how to deal with

them. The choice range available to her however, is limited by what the person is capable of

doing (Sen, 1999), determined by how a person is naturally gifted and the set of intangible

resources (such as knowledge, skills, freedom of movement, access to services etc.) and

tangible resources (such as capital and infrastructure) available to her (Sen, 1990, 1999). The

exploitation of the gifts and resources is in turn enhanced by what Sen (1999) labels as

‘social arrangements’. Thus, social arrangements work to institute the freedom a person or

community has in freely choosing the combination of resources to work with for the purpose

of achieving expected end results, or pre-set developmental goals.

Applied to ICT4D, and the diffusion of ICTs in their capacity of GPTs, locally organised

efforts are essential to enhance the presence of social arrangement frameworks in

underdeveloped economies. The arrangements should in turn boost the emergence of a SI

capacity, capable of generating innovation complementaries and complementary investments

for the deepening of ICTs in respective economies, hence improved factor productivity and

economic development.

In an attempt to focus ICTs to output and productivity versus derived economic growth and

social transformation in the Africa’s underdeveloped countries, we have chosen in this study

to embark on the inherent characteristics of GPTs for long-term economic and social

transformation impacts. The lenses of social development theories, specifically the Capability

Approach (CA), are used to frame SI as a social capability to mediate ICTs for long term

social change. This is done by positioning SI in the spectrum of ICT diffusion processes, via

inferring the innovation complementarities and complementary inputs.

12

The effects of framing for SI are twofold. First, SI is framed to generate a medium that

functions as a carrier for investment and innovation complementaries in order to supplement

for the weak industrial base as presented before. Recall that a strong industry base functions

to produce, absorb, and reproduce ICT innovations on the one hand, and to support

innovation processes with resources on the other. Second is that SI is framed to specify the

‘agency’ of the state which is proposed to be the key role player in driving for organized and

sponsored innovations, and enhancing for ambient social arrangements for innovation to

emerge. This is further clarified in the next subsection.

Innovativeness and Technology Diffusion in the Mediation of State Agency

Innovation is a dimension of technology that is highly influential in instantiating technology

in the realm of development processes. In the absence of strong firms, potentially impactful

major innovations have to be planned for, and coordinated to exploit their advancements and

cumulativeness in sectors for their short, medium, and long-term socio-economic

performances.

Innovation is a collective social endeavour, a collaborative process in which the economic

units such as sectors depend on each other for the expertise, goods, and services in a wide

social constituency of workforce, suppliers, consumers, institutions, training bodies etc.

Figure 3 below is a framework for the comprehension of the modelling dimensions.

13

Figure 3 Modelling Framework

4 - GPT

DIFFUSION

-Capital

deepening

-Labour quality

1-State organized collective vision

of the society

2- Action Areas

Determine economic

characteristics

-Economic structure

-Value chains

-Core competences

-Processes

Capabilities

-Individuals

-Social arrangements

-Institutions

Technology

-Innovations

-Resources

-Infrastructure

-Sector networks

etc

Activity

of

agency

3 - Short-term

aspects and impacts

Action and inaction on

technology:

-adaptive innovations

-adaptive applications

-modifications

-repair

-vocational training, -etc.

6 - Long-term

Transformational

Impacts

ECONOMIC

TRANSFORMATION

SOCIAL

TRANSFORMATION

5 - CHANGE IN PRODUCTION PROCESSES

IMPROVED VALUE CHAINS

ECONOMIC GROWTH

14

In Figure 3 are six main dimensions labelled 1-6. The six dimensions altogether function on a

SI platform. In the figure SI is placed as ‘level 0’, to mean that all other elements of the

framework are an outcome of its functionings. The dimensions are described as follows:

Dimension 1 depicts the role of the state to organize visions on technology, development and

social transformation, in its representation of the society.

Dimension 2 informs on the areas of attention for the state’s action. For instance, the state

should be aware of the economic conditions, the available capabilities, and the technology

environment so that it can act to align them with the requirements for the deep and extended

diffusion of ICTs.

Dimension 3 is an activity area. It is a projection of the individual and institutions agency role

playing in innovating and propagating innovations. It is a demonstration area of the

innovation capabilities. The realization of innovation impacts is achieved in the short term,

while other impacts bear implications for the long-term outcomes.

Dimension 4 is a depiction of the outcome of the processes and activity that take place in

Dimension 3. As people engage technology in different aspects, capital deepening develops,

quality of labour gets modified, and technology sinks to the cores of economic operations

whose impacts are realised in Dimension 5.

Dimension 5 projects the macro level manifestations of the impacts of Dimension 4. They are

an outcome of technology enhanced factor productivity. Improved production processes and

improved economic value chains lead to economic growth. In turn, economic growth is a

driver for long term sustainable social and economic transformation of Dimension 6.

The framework under construction should be a guiding tool of practice in applied ICTs.

Accordingly, the next stage is to underpin the framework in operations.

Framework operationalization

To operationalize the framework developed in the preceding Sub-Section, at the centre is the

requirement for the state to have base information on the techno-diffusion scenario for it to

effectively organize for high impact technology diffusion. The state must have an idea on the

status of the diffusion critical identifiers or variables (technology deepening, sector linkages

etc. Figure 4 ). This is an input that should function to identify the technological concerns,

and development of content and values for the state organized diffusion processes.

For practical purposes, a tool devised for the prior techno-diffusion scenario assessment for

identifying the starting point or the relevant ‘concerns’ beforehand. The tool is presented in

Figure 4 as a ‘spider-web diagram’ (SWD) for multi-dimensional perspectives in the process

of assessment.

15

Figure 4 A Spider-web tool in the drafting of organized ICT diffusion process

The spider-web tool works by, firstly specifying certain ‘critical identifiers’ informed criteria.

For instance in the figure, the ICT innovation, social arrangements, innovative

complementaries, and complementary inputs emanate from the stages one and two critical

identifiers. The rest are informed by stage three. The scores (here arbitrary) are obtainable

from the technical surveys, using Likert scale tools. The Core ICT indicators manual

(Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, 2010) is useful at this stage. It is used to get

the specific variables for each criterion. The observations against the criteria are supposed to

generate action areas for intervention, such as where to do what.

For instance, the score on ICT innovation is an indication on the rate of emergence of ICT

related innovations. An innovating society will have a favourable score on this. Then on

social arrangements, the tool is to test for the presence of the necessary social arrangements

(policies, financial resources guarantees, market protection etc.) for innovations to emerge

and thrive and so on.

The tool also helps as a pointer to the areas of strength and weakness in the efforts for social

development. The areas that attract low scores on the specified variables should be areas of

incompetence and vice versa. The advantage of the tool is that it provides a visual aid for

viewing the status of critical identifiers in a single plane by use of an easy to understand

polygon.

9. Contributions

This study has made two important contributions to the understanding of diffusion of

technology and addressing of digital divide in developing countries. (1) The paper has

exposed the weak position of firms in the creation of the necessary complementary

investments, innovation complementaries, and inter-sectoral linkages in the diffusion process

of ICT in Africa’s underdeveloped countries. This results in a low and narrow appropriation

level of ICT, which does not promote factor productivity growth and ICT’s contribution to

output. (2) The paper has exposed the ineffectiveness of the applied ICTs of ICT4D

initiatives in taking technology and innovation to the cores of underdeveloped economies’

0

1

2

3

4

5Scale

ICT innovation

Social arrangements

Innovativecomplementaries

Complementaryinputs

Technologydeepening

Factor productivity

Sectoral linkages

16

economic processes. And (3) that to change the above scenario, the underdeveloped countries

have to take initiatives to promote local innovation capabilities for the strategic diffusion of

ICT. To this the paper has proposed for the intervention of the state agency role in driving

ICT diffusion in Africa, and also to effect the long-term economic growth and socio-

economic transformation.

10. Conclusions

At this point it is summarised that ICTs have their greatest economic impacts in their contexts

of GPTs; that GPTs depend on specific features for their effective diffusion in economies;

that a dual existence of ICT producer and user industries and a network of sectoral linkages in

them is an important catalyst for the diffusion of GPTs. It is also learnt that the presence of

situated agency in applied ICTs should be important to facilitate the identification of

concerns, and the development of content and values for ICT innovations in a situated sense

making world view.

In the modelling exercise, we focused on deliberating for the emergence of the GPT

characteristic features without dependence on the absent duality of producer and user firms

identified elsewhere. We proposed for the social arrangements that are capable of sponsoring

the emergence of local innovativeness and capital deepening for greater factor productivity in

underdeveloped countries.

References

Alampay, E. (2006). Beyond access to ICTs: Measuring capabilities in the information

society. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 2(3).

Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/printarticle.php?id=196&layout=html

Bresnahan, T. F., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies ‘Engines of

growth’? Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83–108. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/030440769401598

T

Cette, G., Mairesse, J., & Kocoglu, Y. (2005). ICT diffusion and potential output growth.

Economics Letters, 87(2), 231–234. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/S01651765050002

24

David, P. A., & Wright, G. (1999). General Purpose Technologies and Surges in

Productivity: Historical Reflections on the Future of the ICT Revolution. Retrieved

from http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/12488/

Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., Mustafee, N., & Williams, M. D. (2009). Profiling a decade of

Information Systems Frontiers’ research. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(1), 87–

102. Retrieved from

http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/article/10.1007/s10796-008-9147-7

Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: Theory and policy for the demand

side. Technology in Society, 21, 63–79.

Gretton, P., Gali, J., & Parham, D. (2002). Uptake and impacts of ICT in the Australian

economy: evidence from aggregate, sectoral and firm levels. In OECD Workshop on

ICT and Business Performance, Productivity Commission, Canberra, December (p.

192). Canberra, Paris: EOCD.

17

Gretton, P., Gali, J., & Parham, D. (2004). The effects of ICTs and complementary

innovations on Australian productivity growth. The Economic Impact of ICT:

Measurement, Evidence and Implications, 105–30. Retrieved from

http://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4rLVAgAAQBAJ&oi

Gault, F. (2010). Innovation strategies for a global economy: Development, implementation,

measurement and management. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited and the (IDRC).

Gibbon, P. (2001). Upgrading primary production: A global commodity chain approach.

World Development, 29(2), 345–363. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X00000930

Giddens, A. (2009). The Constitution of Society. UK: Polity Press.

Gigler, B. (2004). Including the Excluded-Can ICTs Empower Poor Communities? Towards

an alternative evaluation framework based on the capability approach. In The 4th

International Conference on the Capability Approach (pp. 5–7). Pavia, Italy.

Gomez, R., & Pather, S. (2010). ICT Evaluation: Are we asking the right questions? In

Proceedings of the 4th International Development Informatics Association

Conference (Vol. 4). Cape Town: IDIA.

Hamel, J. (2010a). ICT4D and the Human Development and Capabilities Approach: The

Potentials of Information and Communication Technology (Research Paper No.

2010/37) (pp. 1–78). Munich: UNDP. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-

muenchen.de/26408/1/MPRA_paper_26408.pdf

Helpman, E., & Trajtenberg, M. (1996). Diffusion of general purpose technologies. National

bureau of economic research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w5773

Indjikian, R., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). The impact of investment in IT on economic

performance: Implications for developing countries. World Development, 33(5), 681–

700. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/S0305750X050000

94

ITU. (2005, December). World Summit on Information Society. ITU.

ITU. (2010). World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report 2010: Monitoring the

WSIS Targets - A Mid term review (p. 258). des Nations, CH 1211 Geneva

Switzerland: ITU.

ITU. (2012). Measuring the Information Society (p. 230). CH-1211 Geneva Switzerland:

ITU. ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf

ITU & UNCTAD. (2007). World Information Society 2007 Report: Beyond WSIS. Geneva.

Jalava, J., & Pohjola, M. (2007). ICT as a source of output and productivity growth in

Finland. Telecommunications Policy, 31(8), 463–472. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/S03085961070005

35

Jovanovic, B., & Rousseau, P. L. (2005). General purpose technologies. Handbook of

Economic Growth, 1, 1181–1224. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/science/article/pii/S15740684050101

8X

Kleine, D. (2009). ICT4What?-using the Choice Framework to operationalise the capability

approach to development. In Information and Communication Technologies and

Development (ICTD) (pp. 108–117). ICTD.

18

Meyer, M. (2000). Innovation roles: from souls of fire to devil’s advocates. Journal of

Business Communication, 37(4), 328–347. Retrieved from

http://job.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/content/37/4/328.short

Morales-Gómez, D., & Melesse, M. (1998). Utilising information and communication

technologies for development: the social dimensions. Information Technology for

Development, 8(1), 3–13.

Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations, (Spring), 145–162.

Ngwenyama, O., Bollou, F., Andoh-Baidoo, F., & Morawczynski, O. (2006). Is There A

Relationship Between ICT, Health, Education And Development? An Empirical

Analysis of Five West African Countries From 1997 - 2003. The Electronic Journal

on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 23(5), 1 – 11. Retrieved from

http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/189/147

OECD. (2004). The Economic Impact of ICT Measurement, Evidence and Implications:

Measurement, Evidence and Implications. OECD Publishing.

Page, J. (2011). Should Africa Industrialize?. Working paper//World Institute for

Development Economics Research. Retrieved from

http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/54018

Page, J. (2012). Can Africa Industrialise? Journal of African Economies, 21(suppl 2), ii86–

ii124. Retrieved from http://jae.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/suppl_2/ii86.short

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rohman, I. K. (2012). On the weightless economy: Evaluating ICT sectors in the European,

Asian and African regions. Chalmers University of Technology. Retrieved from

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/158108?pubid=137912

Schoderbek, P., Schoderbek, C., & Kefalas, A. (1990). Management systems: conceptual

considerations. Bpi/Irwin Homewood, IL

Sen, A. (1990). Development as Capability Expansion. Oxford University Press. Retrieved

from

http://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tUTQP4CHUO4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA3

19&dq=the+basis+for+Sen%27s+capabilities&ots=tSlJIE0nHu&sig=S3ARDzdARg

UvumiWN7FQyjX05kQ

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Smith, M. L., Spence, R., & Rashid, A. T. (2011). Mobile phones and expanding human

capabilities. Information Technologies & International Development, 7(3), pp–77.

Retrieved from http://itidjournal.org/itid/article/view/762

Steyn, J. (2011). Paradigm Shift Required for ICT4D. In J. Steyn & G. Johanson (Eds) ICTs

and Sustainable Solutions for the Digital Divide: Theory and Perspectives (pp. 19-

44). Downloaded on 22 June 2015 from http://www.ethnosproject.org/wp-

content/uploads/digital-divide-thery-perspectives.pdf.

Steyn, J., & Kirlidog, M. (2013). A Brief Critique of The Standard View of ICT4D. In

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Social Implications of

Computers in Developing Countries (pp. 645–664). Ocho Rios, Jamaica: IFIP WG

9.4.

Sutinen, E., & Tedre, M. (2010). ICT4D: A computer science perspective. In T. Elomaa, H.

Manilla & P. Orponen (Eds.), Algorithms and Applications (pp. 221–231). Springer.

Retrieved from http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-

12476-1_16

The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. (2010). Core ICT Indicators 2010 (p.

94). CH-1211 Geneva Switzerland: ITU.

19

Tongia, R., & Subrahmanian, E. (2006). Information and Communications Technology for

Development (ICT4D)-A design challenge? In Information and Communication

Technologies and Development, 2006. ICTD’06. International Conference on (pp.

243–255). Retrieved from

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4085538

WSIS. (2003). Declaration of Principles (Document No. WSIS-03). Geneva: WSIS.