I’m interested to note that the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) (or at least the Information and Communications Technology for Development—ICT4D—folks at the IDRC) have decided to hitch their wagon, and not incidentally their not inconsiderable resources to the “Open” movement and launch a campaign for an Open ICT4D meme.

The major document in this initiative defines “Openness” and “Open ICT4D” as follows:

…as a way of organizing social activities for  development benefits that favour: a) universal over restricted access to communication tools and information; b) universal over restricted participation in informal and formal groups/institutions; and c) collaborative over centralized production of cultural, economic, or other content.

Certainly it is very hard to fault (or even disagree) with any of the above except that this definition and the following paper seem to not understand that lack of access in most developmental contexts isn’t simply a failure of reasonable people to understand that they should proceed in an “open” rather than a “closed/restrictive” fashion.  The lack of access in many if not most cases serves the interests of some quite well including many who gain considerable advantage from lack of transparency, restrictions on use of government data, the use of security designations in inappropriate contexts. In these instances a lack of access is most frequently a function of a lack of power in a particular social and economic context and that articulating the good feelings attendant on an “openness” strategy are as unlikely to change those restrictions as were the thinking of good thoughts sufficient to stop the flow of oil from the BP Gulf catastrophe.

The paper further seems to suggest that “open” as in “access” is equivalent to “universal access”.  This would appear to be a conceptual mistake since “Open” as a term presents a condition or state of “access” while “Universal” as a term provides a definition of how and by whom this state i.e. “access” may be actualized.  In fact, the notion of “universal” here would suggest that efforts have been made to ensure that all (the universe of) those to whom the access is available have the means to obtain such access.

(Snip)
 

Similarly with “Open Development”; clearly the opportunity to participate in development planning, information sharing, operational implementation will be of interest to and benefit for those already possessing the skills, background and time required to recognize this opportunity and to participate in these processes. In most Developing Countries this would include the quite rapidly developing cohort of technologically savvy recent graduates, newly employed tech workers, many elements in the Diaspora community and so on—the “New Middle Class”.

Getting these people involved in development related activities is, one assumes, overall a good thing.  However, putting one’s emphasis and resources behind these initiatives without putting commensurate resources to support participation by those most needful of benefiting from such development activities—the rural and urban poor, the landless, the illiterate, women outside the paid workforce, the physically disabled and so on is simply to further empower those already being empowered and to assist them in further distancing themselves from the most needful.