WSIS: Whose vision of an information society?

WSIS: Whose vision of an information society?:

Here is some important critics in the World Summit of Information Societies goal for implementation of information technology in the developing world. I have found this in FirstMonday, and the author is a PhD student at University of California (UCLA) and his name is Ajit K. Pyati. The article is 28 pages, but here is what I think is the most important:

"The document covers all the bases in mentioning these different stakeholder groups, trying to be as 'inclusive' as possible. Governments have a role in 'e–strategies' — a slick new word for ICT–related planning. It is interesting to note that the private sector is mentioned as a player in sustainable development. What this fact entails is not clear. The growing corporatization of the Internet is a fact in much of the developed world — how this plays out in the developing world remains to be seen. It appears, however, by mentioning this statement, the UN may be endorsing wider privatized, corporate control of content, infrastructure, and access in the developing world. The consequences of these actions on access issues are mixed; time will tell if greater privatization will result in better or worse access. What this statement portends, however, is the reluctance and inability of the international community to deal with issues of privatization and intellectual property rights that are at the heart of equity issues underlying the Information Society."

"The last stakeholder group is perhaps the most important for the developing world, as it concerns the heart of implementation. The mention of "international financial institutions" is an euphemism for the two main financial institutions in the area of development, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These institutions are controversial, mainly because of a track record of "structural adjustment" programs that have had mixed, and sometimes harmful effects on developing countries. The main tools of implementation, in realizing an "Information Society" for the developing world, are in all actuality these two financial institutions."


"The very nature of WSIS has not been set up to question the benefits of ICTs, serving to further an agenda that sees ICTs as a an inherent "good" in the world. A utopian perspective in and of itself, however, is not necessarily a negative characteristic. However, the use of it in WSIS is problematic because of the legitimizing power of the UN and its ability to shape world public opinion on topics. The notion of a utopia is illusory in the contemporary world; however, it is a positive goal worth striving for. Ideals are necessary and should not be condemned, but the utopianism in WSIS is not constructive because it oversimplifies and generalizes a contested debate that can have significant policy consequences."


"The third question, concerning the nature of agency and implementation, helped to understand how WSIS could accomplish its vision. The four groups that must "cooperate" and work together are national governments, the private sector, civil society, and international and regional institutions, including international financial institutions. How these disparate groups can learn to work together is not explained, nor how these agencies can find the means to accomplish these goals, particularly national governments. The Digital Solidarity Fund is mentioned as a voluntary fund to help aid ICT development, but the future of this endeavor, and its potential effects remain uncertain. The private sector has been given a role in "development," and it remains to be seen what effects this will have on developing countries. The "international financial institutions" are unnamed, but are undoubtedly the World Bank and IMF. These institutions wield a great amount of power in affecting developing countries, and their track record has been mixed. It remains to be seen how ICT development will take place under the auspices of these two institutions."