I started this post a little while ago, but I never finished it. Here's a go at it. I think that USAID’s new Development 2.0 competition is the first step towards streamlining international development. Croudsourcing and online community building might ‘democratize’ and vitalize the practice of development.
USAID launched an open-source competition for solutions to development issues on October 14th. They are calling it the Development 2.0 challenge. It's an open invitation to the development community to come up with "the best in mobile innovations for good." The current competition takes advantage of the rising ubiquitousness of smart phones and SMS in developing areas, and it is asking for submissions of initiatives that use mobile technology for social good (here are some examples of already established initiatives: Ushahidi, FrontlineSMS) The winning individual or group gets a $10,000 grant. Follow the embedded link to get more specific information on the current participants and the rules.
USAID is bringing us this competition via the Global Development Commons (GDC). The GDC is a broader attempt at opening development to croudsourcing (good video explanation of croudsourcing). It is a forum for members of the development community to propose and refine ideas. It's supposed to breed greater supply side collaboration in development.
I'm really interested to see what happens as the development community continues to move towards in these directions – seemingly towards professional/social networking. I think it should. I have felt for a while that a central online forum for the development community - one that simultaneously self-coordinates and opens the practice of development to a wider group of participants - would be immeasurably beneficial. Such a site would cut down on unnecessary completion between development actors, it would serve to break down the 'old boys club' mentality in the development community, and it might force even the biggest names in development to listen to the ideas of those people in developing regions, for their voices are the ones that most need to be heard.
My idea current idea of what this might be like is a combination of the services provided by LinkedIn and Facebook and myC4.com. The first two sites allow users to self organize within a set framework and they provide a huge deal of flexibility. They allow you to create networks; find people with similar interests; make professional connections through intermediaries; and organize events. MyC4.com on the other hand connects beneficiaries with entrepreneurs while obligating fiscal transparency from its participants. A combination of the services provided by these three sites might allow the development community to organize itself (rather than be organized), and this in turn might lead to the following:
Decreased unnecessary competition for the resources of development:
Calls for greater coordination between development agencies have been a hot topic since the Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. The forum talked specifically about the multilateral distribution of aid as a means to development, but the problems with fragmented development assistance that it talked about can be applied to the development community as a whole. Lack of coordination causes undue competition between civil-society organizations. Parallel initiatives shouldn't be in competition with each other over grants and publicity - they share empowering people as a common goal, and that would be their only end in a perfect world. Perhaps a central professional network would allow for combination of ideas and capital rather than a competition for them. On this site you could check what initiatives have already been started, you could apply to work with them, you could donate/loan them money.
The end of the “Old Boys Club” – the supply side ‘democratization’ of development :
A conversation I had with a man at UNESCO elucidated that high-level development initiatives, as orchestrated by the UN (and its subsidiaries), the World Bank, the IMF and major foundations, are not contracted out via a perfectly competitive meritocracy. The major players tend to make agreements with known quantities. You see the same working for and with these high-level organizations because of it. A central network of interested actors might be the correct vehicle to allow greater access to information as to make this selection process more competitive for lesser-known contractors around the world.
The site might also vastly expand the availability of funding for developmental organizations. There is a middle class of donors out there who cannot yet get involved. These potential ‘middle class’ beneficiaries are those who have substantial personal capital and want to fund their favorite causes, but who do not have enough money or time to set up their own foundations. It’s highly plausible that these people would collectively inject huge sums into development initiatives if they were given an easy way to find social organizations that needed funding, and if there was a fiscally transparent means in which to donate. This central social network could open this market.
Listening to the Developing:
A self-organizing forum like I am describing might also further empower the residents of developing states to have greater hand in their own development. One of the hardest pieces of data to collect is a representation of what the residents of developing localities say they need. There is a lack of adequate polling mechanisms in rural districts of most countries (here is a TED speech that talks about this in Sub-Saharan Africa - minute 4). If we could incentivize local participation in such a network and make it accessible via SMS (i.e. like the system on Twitter) then I feel that croudsourcing of development could open up discussions of development plans to the very people initiatives and theories are impacting. Here is a particularly good piece on how developing economies (and their individual sectors) are often left out of developmental planning, and how this breeds anti-neocolonialist sentiments, and reactionary stances. Perhaps the sight I’m proposing will help to ease the developed-developing divide by enfranchising some of the developing into the ranks of the developers.
Conclusion and Disclaimer
The proposal here in, for a self-coordinating online development forum, requires a lot more thought. It would need an impartial developer with enough human and physical capital to get it done (maybe google.org would like to try). I know I am not the only one that is thinking about this. My proposal is earnest, but I hope to make it sounder in the coming months and years as I continue to think about development.
Tell me what you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment