You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Morozov claims that Toyama does not specify how to utilize these resources being implemented in impoverished areas.
Developing countries have faster growing economies. Some developing countries were just introduced technology and have grown significantly in the last few years.
Karlan believes that we need to carefully evaluate the ways that technology impact impoverished communities. Just because it's widely used doesn't mean it's successful in its mission. Evaluation can be of the consequences of the technology on the community and how often its adopted.
If technology is targeted towards a demographic that doesn't include developing countries, it inherently means we also have the ability to create products specifically for this need.
We should view technology as a tool to solve local, small scale, and specific problems.
The M-PESA financial app was able to bring banking services to over half of Kenya.
The data centers place focus on the wrong thing - they were set up as a patronizing entity. There is no "proper way" to provide technology. What's important are the resources of education and tools for children to grow and teach themselves.
technology is a tool to educate future generations, which in the long run help people make more informed decisions to improve their standard of living.
It can be used to end poverty if the technology is used by humans with good intentions and is used effectively.
We cannot rush the inclusion of technology in emerging markets. While the inclusion of technology will not end poverty by itself, it is a great tool to use in the fight against poverty.
According to Karlan we should look at technologies that produce positive impacts regardless of user intent or implementation.
All super power nations were developed prior to the digital revolution.
while Toyoma points out that technology is only a magnifier of intent and capacity, it can still benefit uneducated and underprivileged individuals by providing immediate compensation for completing useful social activities.
Technology is not being implemented in an environment that is access-friendly. Jenny Aker claims that although technology is being used more, the percentage of poor people has remained the same. People who aren't educated do not know how to properly use technology.
New digital tech can provide new solutions to socio-economic development that can largely benefit developing countries and if developing countries don't have access to these technologies, they will "miss out on those large and long term gains" (Qiang)
It is not technology itself that can end poverty, but it is the people's intentions that can whilst using it.
Technology can't beat poverty because the definition of poverty is relative to a society. You are just up-shifting the socio-economic norm.
Morozov never defines poverty.
Technology needs to be made for the people that need it rather than those who can pay for it
It's only one piece of the puzzle. Example- a mobile phone can't make more fertile soil
Only if the user of the technology has the knowledge and willingness to use it for the greater good.
Technology helps give political voice to the disadvantaged
Qiang argues that with the inclusion of technology in developing countries, poverty level has decreased - especially countries in East Asia, South Asia, and emerging markets in Europe
there needs to be an intent and capacity within the society that the technology is being implemented in in order for it to be succeessful.
Karlan: Original intention does not necessarily reflect the value of a technology. Technology can do good regardless of intention.
Giving laptops to children gives opportunities to children that they would otherwise not have. Technology doesn't increase capacity to learn, it creates it.
Toyama makes an assertion that technology is ineffective in ending poverty. He cites the failure of internet cafes in Southeast Asia and Africa. These failures were largely due to lack of funding and interest.