Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October, 2009

Carrying forth the discussion on digital divide and globalization from the last post, let me share another interesting bit. This one is from a Bengali-speaking Dutch researcher who gave a fascinating talk at the just-concluded South Asia conference at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dr. Lotte Hoek, a social anthropologist at the University of Edinburgh (and previously at the University of Amsterdam), spent many months in the darkrooms of the Film Development Corporation (FDC) in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The film industry is caught between 60s technology and traditional mores on the one hand, and the hyperactive output of satellite tv and cultural globalization on the other. This disruption is the context of Dr. Hoek’s work, and she documented a great example of bridging digital divides with localized ingenuity.

To bring the film industry up to date, the Bangladesh government has imported and installed digital editing hardware and software in the FDC editing labs. The installed machines are able to transfer frames from celluloid film into digital editing software. All filmmakers submit their rolls to the FDC, and state-employed technical editors then do their part.

So far so good. The problem is, the government did not install any machine to do the reverse transfer, from digital to film, after editing.

So what do the technicians do? They say, “dorkar nai” (we don’t need it). And undaunted, they finish their editing, then display the digitally edited parts on their screens, frame by frame, while someone shoots the display on regular film camera, frame by frame. This, of course, yields interesting colors and effects, and sometimes the portions can’t even be reconciled, since the fps (frames/second) rates are different for digital and celluloid media.

Nonetheless, films are produced, edited, and released to an enthusiastic audience. They simply call this “half-digital,” and life goes on.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Earlier this month, I attended a fascinating conference organized by the Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship at MIT. Three things about South Asia stood out for me.

One, cheap connectivity. Thanks to the mobile phone, increased connectivity in South Asian countries is unleashing economic potential like never before. Countries there have some of the lowest costs anywhere in the world. Bangladesh, for instance, is third lowest in the world in total cost of ownership of a mobile line for voice and messaging. And for data, its TCO is the lowest: about $8 a month. Compare that to Brazil’s $250 a month to get a sense of who might access and benefit from technology.

To me, this cost is not just a reflection of the devices, celltowers, and labor expenses. It’s a reflection of liberal government and corporate policies, which keep taxes reasonable, provide mutual political and economic profits, and allow healthy competition. Latin America’s cost structure is certainly not high enough to justify the world’s highest data charges.

Two, better information availability. We had a great discussion in my graduate class on globalization yesterday about digital divide vs. Friedman-esque flat world optimism. Nearly 700 million people in India, a country that Friedman has gushed about, lack ICT connectivity. This information divide, which sustains much political power and corruption in South Asia, may be reducing in some areas. A great example was provided by Comat, a company that’s working currently in five Indian states. It has set up a network of two thousand ICT-enabled rural business centers that simply provide information, such as citizen records, government rules, etc. Farmers don’t have to bribe local officials to get a copy of their deed. These add up. Comat’s program evaluation, done by Harvard, estimated its corruption-reduction impact to date in the range of $400 million. And all the company provides really is information which the public has the right to access but could not earlier without paying cronies along the chain.

Three, high cost of business. All these changes are brought about by innovative business ideas inclusive of the bottom billion and by supportive government policies that allow these businesses to operate. Comat, for example, needed to get authorization from very high levels to access information that previously was the fiercely protected turf of local officials.

But across South Asia, the cost of doing business remains very high in all major areas, whether you want to start a business, get permits, employ workers, register property, get credit, protect investors, pay tax, trade across borders, pay investors, or close your business. Out of 183 countries ranked by the World Bank, India ranked 133 (and 182 in enforcing contracts). Bhutan and Nepal were slightly better, in the 120s. Bangladesh was 119, Sri Lanka 105, and Pakistan 85 (note that the doing business index does not look at political and physical risk to the business). Unless you are highly connected, the only way that entrepreneurs can reduce these barriers is by paying bribes. Imagine the potential if governmental red tape on doing business is lowered!

Read Full Post »