I came across this NY Times Magazine article yesterday about cell phones and the world. The writer explains in the beginning that, "Several companies, including Intel, Motorola and Microsoft, employ trained anthropologists to study potential customers, while Nokia’s researchers, more often have degrees in design." (By the way, I didn't put the links to those companies in, it just copied that way.) So anthropology has become commercial. According to this article, 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. In addition, Eighty percent of the world’s population now lives within range of a cellular network, which is double the level in 2000. About those brain tumors...
One of the main points of the article is that when people gain access to a cellphone, their income boosts because of their ability to contact many people. The article claims that increases in cellphone use also increases a nation's GDP. The writer explains this phenomenon as, "bottom-up economic development, a way of empowering individuals by encouraging entrepreneurship as opposed to more traditional top-down approaches in which aid money must filter through a bureaucratic chain before reaching its beneficiaries, who by virtue of the process are rendered passive recipients." But is imposing a piece of technology, that is only useful because a chunk of the world has them, an effective economic uplift? I'm actually not sure where I stand on this because the world economy is incredibly complicated.
A point that interested me more was how text messaging can contribute to more effective healthcare. For example, the author of the article discusses how people in Kenya can ask anonymous questions about culturally taboo subjects like AIDS, breast cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, and receive prompt answers from health experts for no charge. Who are these health experts and where are they? I guess this is a helpful tool.
My question, after reading this article is: are cellphones a democratizing tool or a tool for huge cell companies to control the world? Another question I have is: do cheap and available phones mean cheap labor in poor areas, and if so, isn't this contradictory?
I'm curious about what you all think of this article. Here's the link again. Let me know!
-Brittany
2 comments:
hi Brittany,
It is interesting that you say 'imposing a piece of technology' , i am writting this from Africa and yes i had read the article (thats how i stumbled on this!; and although some of the information in the article might make good marketing ,most of it is true , and is the reality.FYI no one is imposing anything to anyone down here (or is it up here), i am carrying out a research on ICT 4 development and out of all the gadgets that have been introduced to this continent none has the people warmed up to , as much as the mobile phone ...even the radio. True there might be 3.3 billion people out there with no access to the mobile phones , but there over 5 Billion who have no access to the internet or a PC . But the mobile phones are changing that ...there is an estimated 75% annual growth in subscription , with atleast 80% of the rural Africans (the one's with no internet) having access to a phone. Just ten years ago there were only and still are about 13 fixed line phones for every a hundred people. The opening up of the communication space has increased the market opportunities for farmers , fishermen and small scale traders ,it also provides banking service to the unbanked this does indeed affect the Gross National Income per Capita , and the GDP. does that answer your question....?
thanks for posting this Brittany. Lots of things to think about. I have a book of cell phone grafix which I will try to find before tomorrow's class!
DeeDee
Post a Comment