ICT4D Training Scholarship

Development Informatics
Working Paper Series

The Development Informatics working paper series discusses the broad issues
surrounding information, knowledge, information systems, and information and
communication technologies in the process of socio-economic development
Paper No. 59
ICT4D 2016:
New Priorities for ICT4D
Policy, Practice and WSIS in a
Post-2015 World
RICHARD HEEKS
2014
ISBN: 978-1-905469-87-1
Published Centre for Development Informatics
by:
Institute for Development Policy and Management, SEED
University of Manchester, Arthur Lewis Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.cdi.manchester.ac.uk
View/Download from:
http://www.seed.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/
Educators Guide from:
http://www.seed.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/educdi/
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... 1
A. Introduction ............................................................................................. 2
B. Analysis of ICT4D Policy and Practice via WSIS+10 .................................... 4
C. Future Priorities for ICT4D and WSIS Beyond 2015 .................................... 9
C1. POTENTIALLY WELL-COVERED ICT4D AREAS.................................................................. 9
C2. INFORMATICS-CENTRED ICT4D PRIORITIES .................................................................. 10
C3. NEW DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED PRIORITIES FOR ICT4D AND WSIS .................................. 13
C4. TRANSFORMATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 2.0 ............................................. 27
C5. THE FUTURE OF ICT4D AND WSIS: STRUCTURE, PROCESS AND VISION ............................. 29
D. Conclusion: ICT4D and WSIS Beyond 2015 .............................................. 36

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 39
APPENDIX A: MOST FREQUENTLY-APPEARING TERMS IN WSIS+10 DOCUMENTATION .............. 46
APPENDIX B: COMPOSITION OF KEY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ................................................... 47
APPENDIX C: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN POST-2015 AND ICT4D/WSIS+10 TEXT ...................... 50
APPENDIX D: ICT4D VALUE CHAIN EMPHASES WITHIN WSIS+10 DOCUMENTATION ............... 56
Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59
ICT4D 2016: New Priorities for ICT4D Policy,

Practice and WSIS in a Post-2015 World
Richard Heeks
Centre for Development Informatics
IDPM, University of Manchester, UK
Email: [email protected]
2014
Abstract
In 2016, the Millennium Development Goals will be replaced by the post-2015 development
agenda (PTDA). The foundational content is in place for this new agenda, which will be the
single most-important force shaping the future of international development and, hence,
the single most-important force shaping the future of information-and-communicationtechnology-for-development (ICT4D). In planning prospective ICT4D priorities, we should
therefore pay close attention to the PTDA.
This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the post-2015 development agenda versus
the current content and future direction of ICT4D policy and practice, as exemplified by
WSIS+10 documentation. These latter documents bring together nearly 1,000 pages of text
that review the current state of ICT4D ten years after the foundational World Summits on
the Information Society; and that seek to set out a vision of WSIS and of ICT4D beyond 2015.
From this analysis, the paper identifies a set of post-2015 priorities in international
development which have to date been under-emphasised within ICT4D. In all, 16 ICT4D
gaps are identified for a world from 2016. These gaps, plus other key topics, are used to
create a map of post-2015 ICT4D priorities; a map which will be of significant value to policymakers, strategists and practitioners planning their future ICT4D activities.
Alongside these specific topics, the paper diagnoses a set of cross-cutting issues. It
recognises the need for practice to break out of the ICT4D bubble and engage more with
the development mainstream through a reorientation of ICT4Ds scope, language and
worldview. And it discusses ICT4Ds future structure, process and vision. It identifies the
need to retain specialist centres of ICT4D expertise alongside mainstreaming, and the value
of multi-stakeholder participation. It highlights the current absence of a compelling
narrative and vision for the future of ICT4D: ICTs transformative potential and the
possibilities of Development 2.0 might form one such vision. The implications of all
these issues are outlined for ICT4D generally and for WSIS specifically beyond 2015.
A. Introduction
If we shape our priorities for information-and-communication-technology-for-development
(ICT4D) policy and practice based on the context of broader trends, what trends should we
attend to?1
A simple decomposition of the term shows we could be guided by trends in ICT and/or by
trends in 4D. Though returning to this briefly later, I will not discuss ICT trends in detail.
Some obvious contenders would be: near-ubiquity of mobile, spread of broadband, more
big/open/real-time data, use of field sensors/embedded computing, more social media,
more crowd-sourcing models, more cloud, more smartphones, and 3D printing. One could
also consider related changes such as the move from public and collective to private and
individualised models of ICT usage (UNCSTD 2011).
Instead, though, the focus for this paper is the implications of changes in the 4D context.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have been a key force shaping the international
development agenda since the early 2000s. It is argued that the same will be true for the
post-2015 development agenda (PTDA) which succeeds the MDGs from the end of 2015.
This agenda as argued elsewhere (Heeks 2014a) is the single best guide we have to
future development priorities and goals. Since the aim of ICT4D policy and practice is to use
digital technology to achieve development goals, ICT4D beyond 2015 will be significantly
shaped by the post-2015 development agenda.
Though not yet fully determined, the main features of that future agenda are already laid
down in a number of formative documents. In a previous paper (ibid.), I analysed the static
content of the post-2015 agenda from these documents, and also made a dynamic
comparison with the MDGs. Table 1 shows the twenty-five key development issues
divided into goals, mechanisms and perspectives which emerged from the comparative
analysis. It uses a four-way categorisation to indicate whether the issues are falling down,
continuing on, rising somewhat, or rising sharply up the international development agenda.
Readers who would like further detail about these issues may refer to that earlier paper.
The aim in this present paper is to identify ways in which ICT4D policy and practice are in
synch with these future development priorities; and also to identify out-of-synch elements.
These latter may be over- or under-representations within ICT4D which suggest necessary
reorientations if ICT4D is to fit with the future of international development. Section B
explains how this comparison was undertaken, and why recent materials from the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) were chosen to reflect ICT4D policy and practice.
Section C examines implications for ICT4D, including 16 policy/practice gaps that need to be
filled and a discussion of future ICT4D structures, processes and vision. Section D concludes
with an overall map of ICT4D and WSIS priorities in a post-2015 world.
Here and elsewhere in this paper, I re-use or modify material from two earlier, related publications that
respectively analyse the post-2015 agenda and its implications for development informatics research: Heeks
(2014a) and Heeks (2014b). In essence, this current paper repeats the analysis from Heeks (2014b),
substituting policy/practice for research; with both papers using Heeks (2014a) as an analytical foundation.
MDG to PTDA
Change
Diminution
Continuity
Some Expansion
Significant
Expansion
Development Goals
MDG 8 with ICTs/Digital
Manufacturing
Insecurity
Wellbeing
Infrastructure
Urban Development
Institutional
Development
MDGs 1-6
Rural/Agricultural
Development
Services
Livelihoods
Growth and Jobs
Rights and Justice
Open Development
Inclusive Development
Migration
Environment and
Sustainability
Development
Mechanisms
Traditional Development
Finance
Development Strategy
Informatics
Development
Perspectives
New Development
Finance
Technovation inc. Data
and Mobile
Complex Adaptive
Systems
Development Projects
New Stakeholders
Table 1: Summarising Changes in Development Issues from MDGs to Post-2015 Agenda
B. Analysis of ICT4D Policy and Practice via WSIS+10

How does one compare the content and direction of ICT4D with the content and direction of
the future development agenda? As noted, the latter is encapsulated in a small set of
documents which have been analysed to produce results such as those shown in Table 1.
But what can we use to encapsulate the state-of-play with ICT4D?
ICT4D policy and practice are fragmented across many thousands of organisations, tens of
thousands of projects, hundreds of thousands of communities, and billions of individuals.
The closest we currently have to a node is WSIS: part-structure, part-process that acts as a
centripetal force strong enough to draw some ICT4D fragments together.
The two World Summits on the Information Society the first in Geneva in 2003; the second
in Tunis in 2005 were huge global convocations that set ten ICT4D targets and created
eleven action lines (see Box 1)2. WSIS+10 is a programme of meetings and activities3 which
broadly has two components:
WSIS+10 Review: looking back over the ten years since the WSIS meetings to see what
has been achieved; particularly in relation to the action lines.
WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015: looking forward to future priorities, strategies
and actions that connect digital technologies to socio-economic development.
Box 1: WSIS Targets and Action Lines
Targets
Indicative targets to be achieved by 2015:
a. to connect villages with ICTs and establish community access points;
b. to connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with
ICTs;
c. to connect scientific and research centres with ICTs;
d. to connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives
with ICTs;
e. to connect health centres and hospitals with ICTs;
f. to connect all local and central government departments and establish websites
and email addresses;
g. to adapt all primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges of the
Information Society, taking into account national circumstances;
h. to ensure that all of the world's population have access to television and radio
services;
In addition the Summits set out A vision of the future Information Society ... Initiatives to improve the
measurement of ICTs and ICT impacts ... Mechanisms and institutional formations to address two broad
themes in ICT developmentInternet governance issues and the financing of ICTs and ICT4D ... Follow-up
arrangements for the monitoring and review of WSIS outcomes (UNCSTD 2011:6). See this source for further
details on WSIS.
3
For further details, see ITU (2014a) and http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/2014.html.
i.
j.
to encourage the development of content and to put in place technical

conditions in order to facilitate the presence and use of all world languages on
the Internet;
to ensure that more than half the worlds inhabitants have access to ICTs within
their reach. (ITU 2003: 15)
Action Lines
C1. The role of public governance authorities and all stakeholders in the promotion
of ICTs for development
C2. Information and communication infrastructure
C3. Access to information and knowledge
C4. Capacity building
C5. Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
C6. Enabling environment
C7. ICT applications:
E-government
E-business
E-learning
E-health
E-employment
E-environment
E-agriculture
E-science
C8. Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content
C9. Media
C10. Ethical dimensions of the information society
C11. International and regional cooperation
Although many real-world fragments are necessarily missing, it is reasonable to argue that
WSIS+10s Review and Beyond 2015 activities are the single best state-of-play guide we
have to the present and future of ICT4D policy and practice. The core of this paper is
therefore a comparison of text content between two sets of documentation, with the goal
of helping ICT4D generally and WSIS specifically get more in synch with the future of
development4.
The first text set is the four key documents that provide the foundation to date for the post2015 process:
The initial Realizing the Future We Want for All document (UN 2012) and its update A
Renewed Global Partnership for Development (UN 2013): these are the products in
2012 and 2013 respectively of the UN System Task Team; the core of the post-2015
process.
The value of the latter has already been acknowledged within the WSIS+10 process, which recognises the
need for ensuring proper integration of the WSIS and the Post-2015 Development Agenda (WSIS 2014a:9).
The report, A New Global Partnership (HLP 2013) which was produced in mid-2013 by
a High-Level Panel set up by UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon. This report has been
strongly associated with post-2015 discussions.
The Open Working Group, and High-Level Political Forum, and Expert Committee
associated with Rio+20 and the Sustainable Development Goals form a second track of
PTDA activities. At the time of writing, they are all in mid-process, so the best guide as
yet is the outcome of the Rio+20 conference which is a UN General Assembly resolution
of 2012 entitled, The Future We Want (UNGA 2012).
The second set of text is ICT4D as reflected by key WSIS papers. Our future can only be
based on understanding our present. Thus the post-2015 development agenda
documentation is a mix of where we are now and where we want to get to. An
equivalent was needed from WSIS and the ICT4D document set was therefore made up of
two parts. There were WSIS+10 Review documents:
The final statement from the February 2013 WSIS+10 Review Event (UNESCO 2013).
The outcome document from the May 2013 WSIS Forum (ITU 2013).
The 2014 Executive Summaries of the 10-year WSIS Action Line Facilitators Reports
(http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/reports/).
The May 2014 WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of the WSIS Outcomes
(WSIS 2014a).
And there were also WSIS Post-2015 Vision documents:
The May 2013 WSIS+10 Visioning Challenge: WSIS Beyond 2015 document for the
2013 WSIS Forum (WSIS 2013a).
The 2013 Identifying Emerging Trends and a Vision Beyond 2015 document emergent
from the 2012 and 2013 WSIS Forums (WSIS 2013b).
The 2013/2014 zero draft documents of the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015 plus
summary of submissions received (http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/pages/phase1outcomes.html).
The May 2014 WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015 (WSIS 2014b).
Each set of documents the PTDA and the ICT4D/WSIS was combined into a two overall
documents, and then textual analysis was undertaken via comparative word counts, with
details provided in Box 2.
Box 2: Comparative Textual Analysis of ICT4D/WSIS vs. PTDA Documentation
The process began with identification of roughly 200 terms that provided a specific
and meaningful sense of direction within the international development agenda. As
explained in Heeks (2014a), the term list was developed via selection from the top
500 words counted in the combined post-2015 documentation using Wordle;
eliminating all non-discriminatory terms (very simple words like and, the, of;
basic words like also, must, well; and those which relate to development but do
not provide any particular guide to a development agenda such as development,
developing, countries, etc). This list was then cross-checked and modified with a
similar selection of top 500 terms from documentation relating to the Millennium
Development Goals. Further cross-check and modification was then undertaken via
6
analysis of the top 150 terms from the WSIS+10 documentation including all those
related to the action lines.
The list of the most frequently-appearing of those terms in the WSIS+10
documentation is provided in Appendix A.
In order to allow for comparability, the frequency of all terms was normed to a
mean count per 10,000 words. The frequency of those terms within the WSIS
documents and within the PTDA documents was then compared, calculating the
percentage change in frequency per 10,000 words, and the absolute change in
frequency per 10,000 words. Since these two measures represent different but
important aspects of change, some overall measure was needed: an average of the
two. That overall measure was created by using a comparable indicator standard
deviation and calculating the average variation from zero of each term on the basis
of that indicator5. Given the large number of terms used, some of them were
aggregated into the set of 25 development issues shown in Table 1. The basis for
that aggregation is shown in Appendix B.
There are challenges in undertaking this comparison. The two sets of documents
draw from slightly different disciplinary languages: the PTDA documents largely
from development studies; the WSIS documents somewhat from development
studies but also from informatics studies, ranging from computer science and
telecommunications engineering through information systems to media and
communications studies. A few terms may thus have different prevalence because
they have different meanings, e.g. security meaning both human and cybersecurity in the ICT4D/WSIS text, or services covering both the general service sector
but also specific broadcasting/broadband/network/telecom/IT/ICT/e- services. Care
must also be taken because what one might call the developmental-richness of
language in the WSIS papers is likely to be lower than for the UN documentation.
Therefore one would anticipate a number of issues to appear under-represented.
However, there is a counter-trend. My surmise from 30 years of talking to other
ICT4D stakeholders, is that they sometimes feel like foreigners in Developmentland.
They can parrot a few terms from the world of development but they cannot speak
the language. Those stakeholders need to become not digital natives but
development natives; comfortable not just with the words poverty,
sustainability, inclusivity but with their underlying concepts and discourse, and
able to engage with the ideas of livelihoods and capabilities, security and wellbeing,
justice and vulnerabilities. This state of affairs may mean the extent of use of
development terms in ICT4D documents like those from WSIS overstates the reality
of engagement in practice, which may in some way partly balance the underrepresentation noted above.
Standard deviation is an imperfect indicator for the datasets but since it is not the absolute figure that was
important in the calculation, but just some standardised and comparable measure of data dispersion, it serves
as an adequate indicator.
Account was taken of these issues by attending not just to bare numbers around
aggregated development issues but drilling down to look at individual terms and at
the meanings of those terms in context within the WSIS documents. In all, this is an
imperfect process but attempts have been made to address the imperfections, and
there is some reasonable claim to rigour and validity.
What did the comparison of the ICT4D state-of-play and the post-2015 agenda show?
Appendix C shows the foundational data for the exercise at the level of individual terms, and
also at the level of aggregated development issues (as a reminder, see Appendix B for the
construction of those issues). Figure 1 plots the ICT4D gap measure: the extent of
difference between the post-2015 discourse and the content of WSIS+10 papers6. Issues
above the line are more highly represented in the ICT4D documents than in the post-2015
agenda; issues below the line are less highly represented. The larger the indicator the
greater the over- or under-representation.
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
Figure 1: Measure of ICT4D Gap Between WSIS+10 and Post-2015 Agenda Text
Informatics has been removed from this chart and its calculations because it is axiomatic that this appears
far more often nearly ten times more frequently in the ICT4D/WSIS papers than in the PTDA documents.
C. Future Priorities for ICT4D and WSIS Beyond 2015

The data presented in Appendix C, including the summary shown in Figure 1, provide the
basis for identifying future priorities for ICT4D. That analysis is undertaken below, looking
first at both development and informatics topics which show as over-represented in current
WSIS documentation. Next and the main focus of this section is to look at underrepresented topics plus reading of the WSIS+10 documents and also analysis of the post2015 agenda content and trends (see Section A and Heeks 2014a). Together these are used
to produce a list of ICT4D topics that should be given greater priority. Section C ends with
discussion of what could be an over-arching ICT4D gap Development 2.0 and some
thoughts about future ICT4D structure, process and vision.
C1. Potentially Well-Covered ICT4D Areas

Items which appear above the line in Figure 1 are likely to already be well-represented in
ICT4D, as reflected by WSIS, compared to the coming international development agenda.
Given the importance and strong role of telecommunications and related infrastructure
within ICT4D, it heads the above-the-line items. Technovation is there due to the mentions
of technology to be expected since it is a part of information and communication
technology but also because innovation seems quite central to the current ICT4D
worldview.
There are also individual above-the-line items appearing in Appendix C which already have a
strong representation in WSIS ethics (with morality) and culture led by UNESCO. How
strong these strands are within wider ICT4D is an open question, but they do not need
further emphasis within WSIS beyond 2015. Learning (and related terms like education
and knowledge, skill and capacit*) is also above-the line. There is a lot of real-world
activity around e-learning and developing countries, and at least some of this is captured by
the WSIS action sub-line on the topic. It is not in danger of lagging behind the emphasis
given in the post-2015 development agenda. The same is true, though to a lesser degree, of
e-government and e-agriculture: these have been areas of significant ICT4D including
WSIS activity, which should be maintained. Science is over-represented in Appendix C and
judging from other ICT4D text (Heeks 2014b) it is questionable whether e-science should be
given the same standing as, say, e-business, e-agriculture or e-government.
The nature of WSIS reflecting broader ICT4D practice is very much in tune with post2015 notions of development practice. While, overall, there is no sense that ICT4D/WSIS
should diverge from their current path in terms of development projects, stakeholders or
strategy, some pointers do emerge from the detail.
ICT4D/WSIS has a strong emphasis on development projects; particularly around delivery
and evaluation. If one wanted to diagnose via the analysis relative weaknesses which
require more attention in future, they might be said to lie around:
Leadership: greater need to recognise and nurture the ICT4D champions who drive
forward digital projects and make them succeed (Renken & Heeks 2013).
Monitoring: a shift to ensure more ongoing audit of ICT4D projects as they progress,
alongside the current emphasis on post hoc evaluation.
Impact: a need to ensure that the process of evaluation does not outshine the focus on
actual development impact of ICT4D interventions.
Development strategy including ICT4D policy has an appropriate level of coverage within
ICT4D/WSIS, though perhaps with their currently being greater discussion of regulation
rather than the broader legal frameworks required to support effective use of ICTs in
development. WSIS specifically and ICT4D more generally have seen themselves as
participative, multi-stakeholder activities which fits well with similar prominence given in
the post-2015 agenda. Of course the reality on the ground can be different (Heeks 1999,
Haikin & Duncombe 2013) but the aspiration is clearly there to include the private sector
and communities, and particularly to draw in government, citizens, NGOs and academia.7
C2. Informatics-Centred ICT4D Priorities

As noted above, all informatics terms are significantly over-represented in the WSIS papers
compared to the PTDA, as one would expect, and many defy meaningful analysis because
they appear so rarely in the PTDA documentation. The relative representation of
informatics-related terms that appear more than ten times in the PTDA documents, is
shown in Figure 2.
Divergence from Average
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Figure 2: Relative WSIS vs. PTDA Prevalence of Informatics-Centred Terms
As for other over-represented terms, as noted in Box 2, services is over-represented due to discussion of
technology-specific services. Manufacturing is only mentioned three times in the PTDA document: too few to
draw conclusions.
10
One could try to argue based on relative positioning that more could be made in ICT4D of
ideas about networks in development, and about knowledge economies. But the only
significant pointer here relates to data. Although somewhat over-represented compared to
post-2015 discussion, that can be attributed to discussions about WSIS outcome-related
data, which is a separate matter. Overall, the issue of data needs to be given a higher
priority within ICT4D.
Within the international development agenda there is already growing interest in this area
following the High-Level Panel Report (e.g. ODI 2013; see also identification of the
information revolution in SDSN 2013), given the HLP (2013) explicitly called for a data
revolution. There are three dominant aspects to a development data revolution:
Big development data: the emergence of very large datasets relating to phenomena
within developing countries. One main source has been mobile phone call records
which have been used, for example, to examine intra- and inter-country migration
(Molony 2012); but there are many other emerging and potential applications (ESS
2013).
Open development data: the greater availability of developing country datasets for
general use. By far the biggest growth area has been open government data which is
particularly linked to improvements in accountability and in service delivery, as
discussed further below (Davies et al 2013).
Real-time development data: the availability of developing country data in real time;
that is, simultaneous to the moment of the data-creating event. To date, lagged models
have been dominant within developing country data and decision-making, with data
becoming available months or years after the events that it describes. The growing
diffusion of ICTs within developing countries is reducing this lag significantly to allow
real-time or near-real-time use of data for development decisions (Global Pulse 2013).
Despite this potential, open data alongside personal data only register a couple of
mentions per 10,000 words in the WSIS documents, while big data, real-time data or any
sense of a data revolution are hardly mentioned. Other elements of the data revolution
geo-locational data, mobile data, user-generated data are not mentioned at all.
The sense therefore is that any data revolution in development is a party to which the ICT4D
community is not yet invited and is making few efforts to gatecrash. One can see that
reflected within the UN system where the data revolution flag-bearer Global Pulse
appears to have little connection with established ICT4D actors, and is never once referred
to in WSIS+10. If data-for-development develops independently of ICT4D, this will be to the
detriment of both: D4D will miss out on valuable knowledge, experience, contacts and
mechanisms to scale; ICT4D will be sidelined from a bandwagon that will gather funding and
political attention. Instead, ICT4D generally and future WSIS specifically need to first
embrace and then start to drive the data revolution. This will required changed priorities
but also a changed mindset and language (see Box 3).
11
Box 3: From ICTs to Informatics; From ICT4D to I4D Changing the

Language and Worldview of ICT4D and WSIS
Although used in this paper as one of the a very few aggregate terms, informatics
only appears 17 times in the WSIS+10 documentation (often in the name of an
institution) whereas ICT appears 2,590 times.
This is a problem, as is the terminology of ICT4D, because it can throw too great a
spotlight on the technology and on technology-related issues like access and
infrastructure. It encourages technologically-deterministic designs that fail when
they meet social realities. Now is the time to switch to the language of
informatics, encompassing data, information, knowledge, information systems,
and information and communication technologies.
In part this is just good sense to reflect systemic and social realities. In part this is
good politics. An informatics label will allow WSIS, the UN Group on the Information
Society (UNGIS) and other ICT4D stakeholders to lay claim to the data revolution.
Without this, the data revolution will drag attention and resources down its own
potentially-isolated path.
If we follow this logic, then the domain should change from ICT4D to I4D:
informatics-for-development.
C2a. The Dark Side of ICT4D

ICT4D has not given sufficient acknowledgement to the dark side of ICT4D. The central
perceived problem issue the cuckoo that tends to push all other problems out of the nest
is the digital divide. But that is a constraint not a disbenefit of ICT; it reflects a worldview
that still associates the technology per se only with benefits: ICT is a wonderful thing and
our challenge is to help everyone have effective access.
There is a WSIS action line C10 on Ethical Dimensions of the Information Society which
does encompass the disbenefits; but the focus is relatively narrow, and largely driven by a
rights-based approach that emphasises privacy and freedom of expression. And action line
C5 on Building Confidence and Security in the Use of ICTs directly addresses concerns
about cyber-security with a nod towards online protection particularly of children. But
these are significantly outweighed in the overall agenda of challenges by the digital divide,
and that agenda is itself significantly outweighed by the agenda that ICT is a good thing that
brings development benefits.
Even the disbenefits that are acknowledged rate barely a mention in the two core review
and vision documents (WSIS 2014a, WSIS 2014b). In the overall documentation analysed
more than 900 pages of text failure is mentioned just twice (only as a risk, not a reality);
pornography and viruses are mentioned just once; hacking and work/life balance and cyberwarfare are never mentioned. This reflects a broader sense of marginalisation of the dark
12
side as judged by lack of research analysis within ICT4D (reviewing the more than 100
papers analysed for Heeks 2014b; see also Heeks 2013a) and within ICT generally (Tarafdar
et al 2013).
Two things need to happen. There needs to be greater priority and attention given to
identifying, measuring, analysing and addressing ICT4Ds disbenefits. And there needs to be
an expansion of the disbenefits covered: not just security/privacy/protection but also:
The costs and failures of ICT4D (e.g. Marais 2011).
The development of a Cluedo piece-shaped8 labour market in which the bulk of jobs are
low-paid; mid-level jobs are squeezed out by ICT; and only a very few elite information
society workers benefit (e.g. Boehm 2013).
The loss of work/life balance and growing stress through use of ICTs (e.g. Demerouti et
al 2014).
Short- and long-term negative impacts of ICT use on health, learning and cognitive
development especially among children (e.g. Punamaki et al 2007, Sigman 2011)
Of course there are socio-technical, not technical causes to these disbenefits, but they arise
via ICT and they will increasingly come to the fore as ICTs penetrate ever-further into
development. They will demand increasing resources, and they will need to form an
increasing part of future ICT4D policy and practice.
C3. New Development-Oriented Priorities for ICT4D and WSIS

What of under-represented items? As can be seen from Appendices B and C, the
aggregated development issues sometimes bring together elements with very different
stories, and therefore Tables C1 and C2 are used together in what follows. As noted in Box
2, these were not simply taken at face value but were read in relative as much as absolute
terms, and were also read in context within the WSIS+10 documents. Additional data for
the creation of the priorities that follows comes also from both the static analysis of content
of the post-2015 agenda (reported in Heeks 2014a) and, especially, a dynamic analysis of
trends in the post-2015 agenda (ibid.), a summary of which was presented in Table 1.
13
This combined analysis plus the analysis in earlier parts of Section C produces the
sixteen for 2016 onwards largest ICT4D gaps, in descending priority order 9, shown in Table
2. Three items have already been discussed, and the remainder are analysed next.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Environment
Sustainability
Poverty
Development Finance
Basic Needs
Economic Development: Growth, Jobs and the Digital Economy
Development 2.0
Accountability and Transparency
Data Revolution
Cross-Border Flows
Peace and Security
Urban Development
Resilience
The Dark Side of ICTs
Changing the Language and Worldview of ICT4D
Table 2: Top Post-2015 ICT4D Gaps
The argument here is not that no ICT4D activity exists in these areas; but that these
represent the greatest differences between the priority accorded to a topic in the post-2015
agenda and the presence of that topic within future-oriented ICT4D discourse as
represented by the WSIS+10 documentation. Each one would of course require extensive
reading of current materials in both the development and ICT4D spheres in order to
accurately locate the future priorities. There is only space here to give a brief discussion,
and this should be read in conjunction with discussion of the role of these issues on the
development agenda in Heeks (ibid.).
C3a. Environment
Within the post-2015 agenda, environmental development is the most highly-emphasised of
the four development domains (the others being social, economic and political). There is a
strand of activity within ICT4D on ICTs and the environment for example, reflected in the
WSIS C7 sub-line on e-environment. But it is too far down the ICT4D priorities list it
should be at the top and it is also too narrowly defined. The description of priority within
the WSIS post-2015 vision (WSIS 2014b:11) is a good example: developing Green IT and
using ICTs to mitigate climate change. Adding later text, we find the current ICT4D agenda
focuses mainly on three areas:
th
Though discussed separately, Development 2.0 is shown where it should appear 6 equal based on the
textual analysis. The items from Section C2 use a different approach and two are placed at the end of the list
th
for lack of any other guidance. The data revolution item is placed 8 equal alongside accountability and
transparency because a key constituent open data relates so directly to those issues, as explained in the
text.
14
Mitigation of climate change through green IT innovations that use less power or fewer
resources in their design, construction and distribution.
Monitoring, mainly of weather and including both long-term tracking and short-term
early warning systems.
Minimisation of e-waste through improved design and recycling.
These are all important aspects of the relation between ICTs and the environment but they
largely represent an agenda of the global North and the ICT sector, rather than an agenda of
the citizens of the global South. The no.1 environmental issue facing those citizens is the
need to adapt to climate change and, hence, the no.1 e-environment priority should be use
of ICTs to enable climate change adaptation (Pant & Heeks 2011). Yet climate change
adaptation is not once mentioned in the two core WSIS documents (2014a, 2014b); it rarely
appears in the wider documentation; and there has been little or no attempt by developing
countries to develop a comprehensive plan for ICTs and climate change adaptation.
Alongside adaptation, mitigation and monitoring, then strategy is the fourth domain of
climate change to which ICTs can contribute (Ospina & Heeks 2012). Again, this has little
presence in current ICT4D priorities, and more must be done, particularly in using ICTs to
support climate change policy-making and National Adaptation Programmes of Action.
Finally, two domain-specific but environment-related uses of ICT in developing countries are
under-prioritised in comparison to the future of development:
Energy: use of ICTs to improve energy supply and energy security in developing
countries, including greater use of renewable sources.
Water/sanitation: strengthening the links between ICTs and water from modelling and
mapping fresh and underground water systems, to reporting mechanisms on water
supply points. Similar work is also needed to strengthen the role of ICTs in improving
sanitation systems.
C3b. Sustainability
Sustainability represents by far the strongest theme of the post-2015 development agenda:
mentioned around three times more often than the next development theme. It is also by
far the most comparatively under-represented term in the analysed ICT4D documentation.
Per se, that would suggest ICT4D policy and practice needs to pay far more attention to
sustainability, but this need becomes far more pressing when one looks at the detail of how
sustainable development is handled in the ICT4D domain. Essentially as manifest in the
WSIS text sustainable development is an empty slogan: continuously invoked but never
examined.
Examples of the merely-rhetorical status of sustainable development within ICT4D discourse
(WSIS 2014b) include an example of how E-government can support sustainable
development:
Foster e-government services while meeting the challenges of privacy and security.
And examples of Exploitation of technological innovations for sustainable development:
Create and support thematic information networks such as industry, trade, agriculture,
health, education and others. ... Develop digital terrestrial television and mobile
15
Internet. ... Acquire new frequency bands to the civilian use. ... Harmonize management
of radio spectrum.
There is no sense of any adjustment of focus to specifically engage with the meaning of
sustainability. Sustainable development and sustainability are simply the phrases du
jour that are included without real thought.
To be fair, the post-2015 documentation can often seem the same, but there needs to be
more thought about what type of sustainable development paradigm should guide ICT4D in
future, and what the implications are for policy and practice. The absence of this is one
reason why the Sustainable Development Goals draft available at the time of writing (DSD
2014) makes no mention of ICTs.
Even basic definitions of sustainable development would help. The extended version of the
much-quoted Brundtland Report definition (WCED 1987:43) could be one starting point:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It
contains within it two key concepts:
the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to
which overriding priority should be given; and
the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization
on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.
This already sets up a tension between current and future needs, and between needs and
limitations, which can be explored. Further explored can be the tension between the three
pillars of sustainable development (mentioned but never explained in the WSIS+10 core
documents) economic prosperity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability
which cannot all be simultaneously maximised and must thus be balanced; see also Figure 3
below (World Bank 2001).
Figure 3: The Components of Sustainable Development

That these component parts are largely confined to a few sub-lines within WSIS is one
problem, but there also needs to be recognition of the way in which ICTs can help support
the political debate around the tensions identified above.
16
C3c. Poverty
Poverty was central to the MDG agenda and remains central to the post-2015 agenda. Yet,
after sustainability, it is the second-most comparatively under-represented term in
ICT4D/WSIS, with no action line within WSIS and no specific suggestion on how ICTs will be
used to address poverty. This reflects a wider failure of ICT4D thinking to engage with
poverty and with the discourse and theories of poverty (Heeks 2014b): see also Box 4.
There have been some recent moves to encourage this engagement (e.g. Adera et al 2014,
Heeks 2014c) but it must also happen in practice, with greater insertion of ICTs into Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers and their strategic equivalents (with poverty-specific rather than
just generic ICT priorities), into poverty policies, and into poverty reduction/eradication
programmes and projects.
Box 4: ICTs and the Development Agenda: Everywhere but Nowhere?
The particular terms ICTs and digital have slipped down the development agenda
when we compare the MDGs and post-2015 framework. This is not true of related
terms like data or mobile, which have grown. As a result, the aggregate term
informatics has a stable presence from MDGs to post-2015 agenda. That overall
picture can be seen to reflect an averaging of two trends.
First, an inevitable descent from the heights of the early 2000s. The MDGs were
written around a peak of global interest in ICTs. That wave rolled on into the 2000s,
reaching a crescendo at the 2005 Tunis World Summit on the Information Society,
attended by more 19,000 participants. There then followed a loss of momentum
with a rhetoric of mainstreaming ICTs covering a reality of sidelining ICTs (Heeks
2010a). Like adulterers in the wake of a fling, many in development seemed
embarrassed by their earlier gushing enthusiasm for ICTs and sometimes quite
explicitly wanted to blot their erstwhile paramour from their memories during the
latter part of the noughties. But during the 2010s there has been some recovery,
with new donor programmes emerging, though by no means reaching the earlier
level.
That recovery arises particularly from the second trend, which is the phenomenal
growth in ICTs worldwide. Summarised in Figure 4 (ITU 2014b), this shows the world
has moved from a promise to a reality of digital infrastructure in development: from
12 mobile phone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in the world in 2000 to 96 in
2013; from 8 Internet users per 100 inhabitants in 2001 to 40 in 2013; and from 0.6
broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in 2001 to 40 in 2013.
Thus, digital technologies have become ever-more important in the lives of ordinary
citizens in developing countries, with a clear trajectory that they will become just as
integral to economic, social and political life as they have done in the global North.
17
100
90
80
Per 100 inhabitants
70
60
96.2
Mobile-cellular telephone
subscriptions
Individuals using the Internet
Fixed-telephone subscriptions
Active mobile-broadband
subscriptions
50
40
38.8
30
29.5
20
16.5
9.8
10
0
Note: * Estimate
Source: ITU World Telecommunication /ICT Indicators database
Figure 4: Global ICT Developments 2001-2013

And yet notwithstanding this growth trend in diffusion and application, plus the
growing interest in data we are still left with the pattern that ICTs showed a strong
descent down the international development agenda during the 2000s, with at best
a small recovery more recently. Even that recovery is questionable: as noted above,
ICTs find no place in the current version of the Sustainable Development Goals. We
could thus be witnessing the bizarre concurrence of ICTs touching and shaping evermore aspects of international development at the same time as they disappear from
the international development agenda.
One reason for this may be the failures noted in the main text and in Box 2:
ICT4Ds inability so far to effectively and significantly engage with the twin
colossi of development goals going forward: poverty eradication and
environmental sustainability; which partly relates to
ICT4Ds inability to really speak the language of development: not just saying the
words but grasping the underlying meaning and grammar by fully understanding
development concepts and discourse; and
ICT4Ds inability to create a compelling role for itself in emerging development
paradigms of sustainable development and (see below) inclusive development.
These failures are the core tasks that ICT4D generally and WSIS specifically
should set itself to rectify if it wants ICTs to return to their appropriate place in the
development agenda.
18
C3d. Development Finance

Notwithstanding a post-economic crisis dent, overall levels of aid/official development
assistance (ODA) show an overall growth trend since the turn of the century. For threequarters of very poorest countries (those with government spending of less than US$200
per person per year) ODA still represents the single largest financial inflow (DI 2013a, DI
2013b). But growth rates of both remittances and foreign direct investment have been
even higher, with these plus discussion of taxation and philanthropy all showing a growing
presence in the development agenda if we compare post-2015 to the MDGs.
But all this is poorly-reflected in current ICT4D priorities with every aspect of development
finance, whether new or traditional, under-represented in WSIS+10 text compared with the
post-2015 development agenda finance, aid/ODA, debt, banking, donors, tax,
philanthropy, investment, remittances and money some of which are not mentioned at all.
There is only a little recognition of mobile money in the WSIS documents, and WSIS is
therefore a poor reflection of practice in this case: m-Pesa may be the poster child for these
applications but m-money is already an active and important area of ICT4D in very many
developing countries (GSMA 2014).
This does not mean WSIS has ignored finance and investment; far from it there has been a
particular focus on financing and investment of various aspects of ICT4D. But this is the first
of a number of examples where the agenda remains trapped in an ICT4D bubble; looking
inwards to the ICT domain instead of connecting outwards to the development domain (a
further example of the concerns outlined in Box 3).
What ICT4D needs to do is break out of the bubble, and connect to the development finance
agenda by giving a higher prominence to:
use of ICTs to manage and monitor aid flows and debt;
use of ICTs in mainstream banking and finance;
use of ICTs to improve tax systems and also taxation of ICTs (the mobile sector forming a
core and growing tax base for many developing countries);
ICT-enabled investment channels; and
e-remittances (though covered to some extent already due to remittance being a core
use of mobile money transfer).
A WSIS action line on this would not go amiss.
C3e. Basic Needs
It has been much-criticised over the years but Maslows (1943) hierarchy of needs is also
much-valued, and the bottom levels of the hierarchy (see Figure 5; from Schop (2009)) are a
credible representation of basic human needs. They have also shaped the basic needs
approach to international development, which argues that these basic needs must be the
main development priority (Streeten 1984).
19
Figure 5: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs

Though the basis needs approach is not a dominant force in international development, it
still shapes thinking. Indeed, there are signs of some revival with all basic needs-related
terms showing greater frequency in the post-2015 compared to MDG discourse, and with
post-2015 explicitly including the concept of basic needs where the MDGs did not.
But this idea of basic needs does not appear anywhere in WSIS documents and key items
that might appear in the two bottom layers food, resources, water, violence/peace,
nutrition, land, sanitation, health, food security, hunger, housing, shelter, employment are
all comparatively under-represented.
This is not to suggest that ICT4D and WSIS should ignore higher level uses of ICT, from
learning to culture and ethics. But the foundations must be in place and must, if we believe
in Maslow and the basic needs approach, be the first priority that has to be addressed for
the worlds most vulnerable citizens before any other. Some of the issues such as peace and
employment are discussed separately below, and e-health is already a significant area of
ICT4D practice including an active WSIS action sub-line10.
Higher prioritisation of ICT use in relation to water and sanitation has been mentioned
above. Other priorities in this collection include:
10
Health lies only behind environment and poverty in the list of most-frequently discussed development goals
in the PTDA documentation. This leads to its moderate under-representation in the WSIS text, but e-health is
such a sizeable component already of ICT4D that this moderates any argument for higher prioritisation.
20
Food/hunger: ICT applications to strengthen food storage and distribution; improved

food security information systems and famine early-warning systems.
Housing/shelter: use of ICTs to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate housing projects,
and short-term shelter projects e.g. those relating to disasters.
Land: use of ICTs in relation to land degradation, land management, and land rights and
tenure.
C3f. Economic Development: Growth, Jobs and the Digital Economy

Growth and jobs are key elements in the post-2015 agenda. There is a long-standing and
ongoing debate about the relationship between economic growth and international
development (e.g. Seers 1969, Nafziger 2006). Within this debate a fairly clear trend can be
detected: economic growth dominated the development discourse throughout the 1970s,
1980s and early 1990s. (Rea 2011: 6). Growth then slipped down the agenda, a fade
cemented within the MDGs which had no growth-related targets and only one of more than
60 indicators incorporating growth. However impelled by the 2008 financial crisis in the
West and political instabilities in other parts of the world economic growth is once again
emerging as the dominant approach to development (Roseveare 2011: 3), with increased
presence within the post-2015 agenda compared to the MDGs.
This agenda could be reflected in a couple of the WSIS C7 action sub-lines e-business and
e-agriculture but in practice has tended to remain confined within a single sub-line on eemployment. As in ICT4D overall, it has far too low a profile and it has been far too
narrowly-conceived: in the May 2014 WSIS Vision (WSIS 2014b) it boils down to just three
elements online recruitment portals, teleworking, and ICT training.11
ICT4D needs to link to the growth and jobs agenda in a much larger and much more direct
manner around ICTs and income growth, ICTs and productivity, and ICTs and job creation.
ICTs have a vital, central role in all of these in the 21 st century but you would sometimes be
hard-pressed to notice from the ICT4D domain. True, evidence is only slowly emerging as
ICTs diffuse in developing countries, but there is now sufficient weight to guide priorities
including a substantial reworking and revitalisation of the WSIS e-employment action subline.
The link between ICTs, growth and jobs will be seen in two different areas that make up the
digital economy (Narasimhan 1983). First, intensive applications of ICT where the
technology is used to intensify an existing area of economic activity, i.e. all those sectors
which existed prior to ICTs. Second, extensive applications of ICT where the technology is
used to extend the range of economic activity, i.e. creating a new ICT-based livelihood that
did not exist prior to ICTs. The extensive activities, together, make up the ICT sector.
11
Related terms entrepreneur and enterprise are over-represented in WSIS, in part due to the small base of
about ten mentions each in PTDA text. The difference can be said to reflect a welcome recognition within WSIS
and ICT4D more broadly of the role of ICTs in assisting particularly small/micro-enterprise, and womens
entrepreneurship (a focal initiative within WSIS, which also helps explain the textual over-representation). But
even this needs to be more directly connected to growth, productivity and jobs. Over-representation of
competit* was even less useful as a guide, with only four mentions in PTDA text.
21
It is not clear that ICT4D stakeholders really understand just how big the ICT sector already
is in developing countries, with millions of mobile-related jobs and hundreds of thousands
of other ICT-related jobs created to date; just how much bigger it will become; and just how
different digital microenterprises are (e.g. UNCTAD 2010, UNCTAD 2012). Have they also
recognised that digital innovation and digital entrepreneurship are already burgeoning
realities within poor communities; requiring new intersections of ICT, enterprise, and
innovation policies?
The ICT sector particularly and to some extent the wider digital economy are strong good
news stories which thanks to new business models such as mobile money services and
impact sourcing (Foster & Heeks 2013, Heeks 2013b) are increasingly reaching down into
poor communities to create development benefits via growth, income and jobs. ICT4D
overall and WSIS in particular need to be doing more to highlight, support and strengthen
this aspect of practice.
C3g. Accountability and Transparency
The general concept of openness is already well-, even over-, represented in ICT4D/WSIS
dialogue and perhaps in danger of becoming over-used. But a specific, data-oriented view
of openness Open development is about making information and data freely available
and searchable, encouraging feedback, information-sharing, and accountability (World
Bank 2014) may require greater attention. This data-oriented view links openness
specifically to transparency, accountability and the fight against corruption. All of these
especially transparency and accountability show a very significantly-increased profile
within the post-2015 agenda, and a significant under-representation within ICT4D as
reflected in WSIS.
Their connection to information systems is summarised in Figure 6 (Heeks 2013c (IS =
information system)), which shows how flows of data from a development process (e.g. the
activities of a potentially-corrupt public official) can support stages of reporting,
transparency and accountability12.
12
Transparency and accountability often seem to be treated synonymously but, as can be seen, they are
different. Where transparency allows a recipient to monitor the performance of a development process and
evaluate it against some pre-set benchmark, accountability goes further by permitting the recipient some
mechanism of control (e.g. reward or punishment) over the source.
22
Figure 6: A Data-Oriented View of Transparency and Accountability
ICTs have a vital role to play here in improving the data flows shown in Figure 6; particularly
in delivering transparency/openness. There is a missed opportunity to date in explicitly
highlighting ICTs role in combating corruption. But future efforts will most likely be hitched
to the open data bandwagon. This has most closely been associated with open
government data (Davies et al 2013). However, open data initiatives and improvements in
transparency and accountability can apply equally to private sector firms, markets, and
NGOs (ibid.). Indeed, while there remains an important open government data ICT4D
agenda, one could readily argue that the more neglected area lies in connecting ICTs,
openness and these latter development stakeholders.
C3h. Cross-Border Flows
Globalisation partly facilitated by ICTs has meant increasing global connections and
increasing global flows of labour, of capital, and of goods and services. As the post-2015
agenda recognises, this is only going to accelerate in future. Yet, and despite the integral
and growing role of ICTs in most cross-border flows, this is not an issue that has figured very
much within the ICT4D field. There needs to be a higher profile for policy and projects
relating to:
ICTs and migration: use of ICTs to support immigrant and emigrant populations,
including separated families (reinforcing the family stability that appears in the second
level of Maslows hierarchy: see Figure 5).
ICTs and trade: use of ICTs to enable international trade. This does appear as part of the
WSIS e-business action sub-line but needs greater weight. There is significant use of
ICTs in trade (e.g. van Stijn et al 2011) but it has unevenly-benefitted the global North,
and it needs to be reoriented to ensure it does not perpetuate or even exacerbate an
unlevel playing field (Murphy et al 2014). This application area could also be more
23
explicitly acknowledged as part of the ICT4D domain: it was previously (e.g. Mansaray
1992) but this inclusion needs to be revived.
ICTs and investment: was discussed above under development finance.
C3i. Peace and Security

Since the Second World War, there has been an ongoing (albeit uneven) trend for a decline
in the number of wars and war deaths including a clear decline from the 1990s to the 2000s
(Pinker 2011). There is now more violence within nations than between them, with some
signs that insecurity slightly increased during the 2000s (Chalabi 2013, Hewitt et al 2012).
Thus discussion of wars, conflict and humanitarian issues declines quite significantly within
the post-2015 texts but discussion about violence and security greatly increases; the latter
not quite offsetting the former. The overall topic is under-represented in the ICT4D
agenda13.
There is cyber-security activity in developing countries but this still needs to be significantly
stepped up (Burt et al 2014, Osei-Bryson & Vogel 2014). And this is another example where
the agenda needs to break out of the ICT4D bubble of cyber-security to provide equal
weight to uses of ICT in mainstream peace and security, across the cycle from insecurity
through conflict to post-conflict reconstruction, reconciliation and peacebuilding; from the
micro of violence within households to the macro of regional warfare; and bringing in issues
from application design and implementation to strategic and policy matters.
C3j. Urban Development
This topic did not show a particularly dramatic rise in the post-2015 agenda and its overall
presence there is relatively low compared to other development issues. However, it is
explicitly flagged in post-2015 documents (e.g. HLP 2013, SDSN 2013). And we have the
demographic certainty that urban populations are rising: the global tipping point of greater
urban than rural population was reached in 2008; that point will be reached for developing
countries by 2030; and poverty and many other development challenges are necessarily
rising faster in urban than rural areas (Beall et al 2010).
Simultaneously, while there is of course plenty of ICT4D activity in urban areas, there is very
little that explicitly links ICT to the particular factors and priorities within the urban
development agenda. The WSIS+10 documentation is symptomatic: there is close to zero
recognition of the growing role and importance of cities in the development process. The
only real mention of urban and cities is in relation to urban-rural digital divides, and there
is no place for example for ideas about smart, sustainable cities despite the lead WSIS
player, the International Telecommunication Union, having a focus group on this very topic.
So ICT4D needs to make a much firmer connection between ICTs and urban development.
This means policies singling out ways in which ICTs can support the inexorable growth in
urban areas: supporting the creation and implementation of urban strategies, facilitating
urban planning especially slum improvement, improving urban governance and urban
13
Taking the WSIS+10 documentation, the terms humanitarian, war(s), militar* and terror* appear so
rarely that one should not read anything very much into their frequencies. Of the insecurity-related terms, all
are under-represented in WSIS compared to the PTDA except for security: as noted in Box 2, this is because
the great majority of discussion relates to cyber-security.
24
design, improving urban ecosystems services and other urban infrastructure including
energy and transportation, addressing the specific climate change impacts in urban areas,
and contributing to urban job creation (UN-HABITAT 2012). (There can also be converse
recognition of the benefits to ICTs such as the ICT sector of urban growth and
development.)
Tagging all this with the smart, sustainable cities label seems appropriate though within
WSIS itself, if there can be an action sub-line on e-agriculture, then one would argue there
should also be one on e-cities.
C3k. Resilience
Resilience is that property of a system (which could be a household, community,
organisation, nation, etc) which enables it to withstand and recover from short-term
shocks, and to adapt to long-term trends (Heeks & Ospina 2013). Given the projected
growth in environmental, social and economic shocks during the coming decades and the
associated rise in risk (UNDP 2011, WEF 2013), resilience will become increasingly important
if development trajectories are to move forwards rather than slipping backwards. Because
it is potentially so foundational to a 21st century view of development, not only will
resilience be reflected in the post-2015 framework but it is already the basis for a number of
development initiatives: Rockefeller and the UN system both have Resilient Cities initiatives;
Oxfam and the World Food Programme run the R4 Rural Resilience Initiative; the EU is
funding the RESILIENT project; DFID has set up an NGO group on resilience; and so on.
Resilience is often associated with the environment and sustainability agenda. However, it
has outgrown its environmental (climate change/disasters) roots to be seen as a crosscutting property that all development systems from individuals and households through
communities and organisations and value chains to cities, regions and nations require.
And it has outgrown its sustainability roots to be seen as a property to help systems not only
sustain but also transform. It has thus developed sufficient momentum to justify a specific
presence in this discussion.
Resilience has risen so recently and so sharply up the development agenda that it is no
surprise that ICT4D and WSIS have been left trailing: bar one (encouraging) mention under
e-agriculture in the WSIS vision materials, the only connection made in WSIS documents or
in wider initiatives is to the resilience of ICT infrastructure itself14. Certainly ICT4D must do
more in future to make its own digital systems more resilient but, once again, the core
imperative is to break out of the ICT4D bubble and find ways to use ICTs to make those
development systems listed above more resilient (Ospina et al 2014).
The first step must be foundational work on understanding the connection between ICTs
and resilience: developing tools and metrics; measuring how ICTs impact resilience (e.g.
Heeks & Ospina 2013); and understanding how best to make ICT-based systems more
resilient to external threats (Theron & Bologna 2013). In toto, while there is a significant
14
Resilience-related terms are also under-represented in WSIS+10 documentation, with little sense yet of how
a more resilient approach to ICT4D will help address: vulnerability, risk, crises, fragility, shocks, volatility and
uncertainty.
25
connection in all this to sustainability informatics, the specific issue of resilience

informatics15 will need to form its own particular sub-domain of ICT4D activity.
C3l. Inclusive Development
There have been growing concerns that improvements in overall national-level
development indicators are masking expanding intra-country inequalities, and that higher
inequality as well as being inherently problematic will retard development in the long
run (e.g. Wilkinson & Pickett 2010, Stiglitz 2012). There is debate on the extent to which the
creation of inequality is inherent to particular development models. However, there is a
strong association of the neo-liberal model with formation of inequality (e.g. Lazzarato
2009), and hence sometimes an assumed requirement for alternative approaches to
development in order to address this issue.
The key terminology for that alternative approach is inclusive development; meaning
development that provides opportunities and benefits for all, including those who have to a
relative or absolute extent been excluded by development to date (e.g. Rauniyar & Kanbur
2009). Its incursion into the development debate can be seen by the 1000% rise in
discussion of inclusion/inclusivity and exclusion in the post-2015 agenda compared to the
MDGs.
The strongest connection between ICT4D and inclusion has been action taken on the digital
divide. This has been a cornerstone of ICT4D-related policies and programmes, and hence
of WSIS activity. While there is no explicit action line on this, it is an explicit component of a
number of action lines; a cross-cutting thread that is discussed throughout WSIS+10
documentation16. Digital inclusion is also a continuing theme with recognition that digital
divides note the plural remain and develop: hundreds of millions have no mobile phone
access; the Internet divide encompasses many more; the broadband divide is emergent; and
the technology-access divide is far outstripped by the effective-information-use divide (e.g.
Ragnedda & Muschert 2013).
There are specific digital divides that impact particular groups: women, youth, the disabled,
ethnic minorities. At least on the basis of the text analysis used here, youth and the
disabled have a prominence at least commensurate with their place in the post-2015
agenda. This is not so true for ethnic minorities and women. Womens development is
liberally discussed in WSIS, and there are many examples of ICT4D initiatives aimed at
gender inequalities. However, there is still a small lag behind the level of debate within
post-2015.
But as with other topic areas, the greater challenge is to break out of the ICT4D bubble to
do more than just address digital divides and to engage with the breadth of inclusive
development. In part this will relate to language not just the gesture of adding the
inclusive label but taking on the true meaning of concepts like inequality and vulnerability,
15
The terminology to use here is important since it will shape perceptions about the agenda. e-Resilience
has been used but that, along with digital resilience, may give the impression of being technocentric and
internal to the ICT sector instead of reaching out to serve broader goals. ICT4R could well be most
appropriate.
16
With massive over-representation of terms like divide(s) and access* in WSIS compared to the PTDA.
26
rights and justice. All these are currently under-represented and one could draw on the
latter to argue for greater engagement of ICT4D with rights-based approaches to
development, and the notion of social justice.
But it will also mean developing action agendas around related mechanisms such as social
protection and around each fraction of inclusive development: inclusive growth, inclusive
health, inclusive education, etc. One fraction of especial relevance to ICTs is inclusive
innovation the process and system by which new informatics-based goods and services
are developed by and/or for excluded groups. Inclusive informatics innovation systems
must be understood, identified, and encouraged.
Another relevant fraction will be inclusive business models given that ICTs are increasingly
enabling those within base-of-the-pyramid communities to participate in business value
chains. This may develop initiatives using ICTs to support inclusive value chains; for
example, extending the idea of fair tracing (Light 2010). Alternatively, it may support ICTenabled business models such as impact sourcing the outsourcing of ICT-related work to
excluded and disadvantaged groups that creates new jobs, incomes and skills (Heeks
2013b).
C4. Transformative Development and Development 2.0

In putting together the priorities listed above, I have thought about the implications of all
terms that were less than to -0.5 or more than +0.5 in Table C117. But now one term
remains to discuss transform* a term which appears roughly four times more often in
the post-2015 literature than it does in the selected sample of ICT4D documentation.
As noted in Heeks (2014a), there is a leitmotif of transformation within the post-2015
agenda to date; a belief that the incremental developmental changes achieved to date will
no longer be sufficient in the remainder of the 21st century; and an aspiration for a stepchange in approach. The initial foundation for the post-2015 agenda (UN 2012:i) states
Business as usual thus cannot be an option and transformative change is needed, and its
successor (UN 2013:1) speaks of the need to facilitate transformational change. Going
further, the High-Level Panel report (HLP 2013) puts a central emphasis on five
transformative shifts that need to drive the post-2015 agenda:
1. Leave no one behind.
2. Put sustainable development at the core.
3. Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth.
4. Build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all.
5. Forge a new global partnership.
What this notion of transformation means in practice is rather fuzzy. Sometimes it seems to
mean just more of what is already being done pushing on with the MDG agenda, with
openness and accountability, with multi-stakeholder partnerships. Sometimes it means not
just doing more but doing it somewhat differently e.g. to include those who have hitherto
17
The only three terms which, as a result, did not find an explicit connection with the discussion above were
system, social and institution; seen as too generic to provide clear guidance for future action.
27
been excluded. And at other times there is more a sense of step change e.g. in seeking to
make development sustainable for the future or, very occasionally, in challenging the
current structures of international development (though with no detail on what such a
structural transformation might entail).
What does all this mean for ICT4D and for WSIS? Given the under-representation shown in
Table C1, it suggests ICT4D needs to be doing more to connect ICTs and the transformation
of development. There is already a general orientation for such activity development 2.0
defined as new ICT-enabled models that can transform the processes and structures of
development (Heeks 2010b:1)18. But defining the content of a development 2.0 policy and
practice agenda more precisely will be difficult owing to the fuzziness of the underlying
concept of developmental transformation.
First, there is the threshold problem when is a change sufficiently large to be classified as
transformative as opposed to just incremental? Second, there is the direction problem
transformation of what? Of context (e.g. structures)? Of inputs (e.g. goals, visions,
aspirations)? Of processes (e.g. business models, partnerships)? Of outputs (e.g. inclusion,
sustainability)?
We thus have problems defining transformation in terms of both extent and content.
Heeks Development 2.0 definition above was a mix of process and structure; identifying
three potentially-transformative ICT-enabled models direct development, networked
development, grassroots development. So it misses some possible aspects of content, it has
no clear answer to the threshold problem, and it lacks a strong conceptual foundation
(though might seek the latter either in the ideas of complex adaptive systems or in the ideas
of sustainability).
Once we have worked to understand transformation and Development 2.0 better, there will
be three further foundations needed in order to define the policy/practice agenda:
Ecosystem: who and what makes up a Development 2.0 ecosystem? A Development 2.0
ecosystem is that combination of organisations (government, private sector,
NGO/community, etc); institutions (policies, culture, etc), technologies (standards,
infrastructure, architecture, applications, etc), and other resources (money, skills, etc)
which allows ICTs to have a transformational effect at anything from district to regional
to national to international level.
Business Models: what are the new ICT-based business models that provide for a
transformative developmental impact? In many ways, the Development 2.0 business
model is the organisational equivalent of the higher-level ecosystem; covering
organisational strategy, structure, process and value chain from suppliers to clients.
Despite the business language, Development 2.0 models can be identified in public,
private and NGO sectors (ibid.).
Facilitation: what processes and capacities are needed to facilitate emergence and
successful implementation of Development 2.0? This can be answered for both broader
ecosystems and narrower business models. It can encompass a focus on structures, on
processes, and on the agency of individuals or groups.
18
2.0 itself appears nowhere in the PTDA, and just ten times in the WSIS+10 papers, relating to Web 2.0.
28
Both Heeks (ibid.) and Thompson (2008) identify ICTs as the mechanism that will enable
and might even drive some transformation of development. Thus, Development 2.0
should clearly be part of the future ICT4D agenda, and should be a priority. Hence, its
inclusion in Table 2. But foundational work is needed to conceptualise the meaning of both
developmental transformation and Development 2.0, and the constituent parts of
Development 2.0, before a clear agenda for action can emerge.
C5. The Future of ICT4D and WSIS: Structure, Process and Vision
C5a. Structure: Mainstreaming or Sidestreaming ICT4D?
Around the time of the MDGs, ICT4D became the focus for a critical mass of activity; a
sidestreaming approach that saw specialist ICT4D units arise in a number of international
and national organisations. Post-WSIS, this was largely mainstreamed with specialist units
being disbanded or contracted, and ICT4D expertise seen as diffused into the main
development sectors. There is a logic to mainstreaming if done right in ensuring
integration of ICTs into a broad range of development goals.
But there are also many dangers of just mainstreaming (Heeks 2010a): you lose the focus for
learning about ICT4D; you hide or downplay technological innovation which can be a source
of motivation and hope, and a lever for change; you lose sight of the ICT sector and digital
economy roles in development; you silo ICT into individual development sectors and thus
miss the technologys cross-cutting, integrative capabilities; and there is no Development
2.0 or other vision for ICTs as a force for transformative change.
So alongside mainstreaming, there needs to be some sidestreaming: retaining and
supporting specialist ICT4D units within the UN system overall; individual UN
organisations; international development agencies; national development agencies;
national governments; international NGOs; etc. But ICT4D seems to spend more time
making arguments for mainstreaming than for sidestreaming: in the WSIS documentation,
mainstreaming is mentioned on a fairly regular basis but the need for sidestreaming very
much present if one cared to draw it out is only implicit.
The case for specialist concentrations of expertise will require evidence of the past benefits
of, and continuing future necessity for, sidestreamed structures at all levels within
development. That should associate the value of sidestreaming just identified learning,
motivation, hope, change, ICT-based livelihoods, integration, transformation, etc not just
with the positive impacts of ICT4D but also the negative: as development becomes evermore digital, we will require a focused effort to address its dark side.
As noted, this applies at various levels but the structuring at the level of the UN system
mirrors that one would find at the level of individual countries and organisations.
Essentially you have a technology-focused structure the ITU in the case of the UN;
equivalent to a Ministry of ICT at national level or the IT department at organisational level.
Its future is never in doubt and it remains the bastion of sidestreaming. But these structures
29
have a problem: they are full of engineers with a techno-centric worldview who find it
difficult to understand development language and concepts.
We can characterise the issue in terms of the ICT4D value chain (see Figure 7; adapted from
Heeks 2010c). Technical structures are good at dealing with the technical components of
readiness, and the technical deliverables of availability. But they are not so good at
dealing with the non-technical elements of both stages, nor with the issues of uptake and
impact. That would be a problem in itself but it is exacerbated because, over time and as
ICT diffuses ever-further into international development, there is a shift in focus from just
being concerned about readiness and availability to being equally if not more concerned
with uptake and impact (see Figure 8; ibid.). Although a very rough-and-ready calculation
different selection of terms could produce a different result there are signs from the
figures presented in Appendix D that WSIS still retains a significant upstream focus on
readiness and availability as compared to the downstream issues of uptake and impact.
This suggests it is being restrained somewhat by an overly-technical focus, which may arise
from the domination of overly-technical structures19.
19
As another example, the terms standards appears more often than the term poverty.
30
Exogenous
Factors
Enablers
Precursors
-Data systems
-Legal
-Institutional
-Human
-Technological
-Leadership &
Vision
-Drivers/Demand
Strategy
Inputs
-Money
-Labour
-Technology
-Values and
Motivations
-Political support
-Goals and
Objectives
Implementation
Intermediates /
Deliverables
-Locations (e.g.
telecentres)
-ICTs (e.g. PC,
mobile)
-Software
applications
Adoption
Use
Sustainability
Scalability
Outputs
-New
communication
patterns
-New
information and
decisions
-New actions and
transactions
Outcomes
-Financial and
other
quantitative
benefits
-Qualitative
benefits
-Disbenefits
Constraints
READINESS
UPTAKE
AVAILABILITY
Figure 7: The ICT4D Value Chain
31
IMPACT
Development
Impacts
-Public goals (e.g.
MDGs)
Level of ICT4D
Activity
Impact
- Micro-Outputs
- Outcomes
- Development Contribution
Uptake
- Demand
- Usage
- Use Divide
Readiness
- Policy
- Infrastructure
- Digital Divide
Availability
- Supply
- Implementation and
Design
Time
Figure 8: Changing Focus of ICT4D Priorities Over Time
The solution here is that, over time, one places less emphasis on technical personnel and
technology-dominated structures, and greater emphasis on ICT4D hybrids: socio-technical
people and structures who combine an understanding of informatics (data, information,
ICTs, information systems) with an equal understanding of development. In theory, the UN
system has this via the UN Group on the Information Society, which was set up in 2006 in
the wake of WSIS 2005 to draw together those with ICT4D interests and responsibilities
from across the UN system20. However, the extent to which UNGIS members are actually
hybrids is unclear; it is currently chaired by the ITU which must shape its worldview; and
more generally, UNGIS seems to have limited power and reach in part due to its lack of
independent resources.
So what of the future for ICT4D structures in the UN system? One could argue for a
hybridisation of the ITU: a broadening of its scope to turn it from a technical into a sociotechnical organisation that can cover all parts of the ICT4D value chain. But that could be
self-defeating in terms of politics and impact: it could create an ICT4D silo that was isolated
from development; all sidestream and no mainstream. And it would also be impractical
given the focus and interests of ITUs membership. Far better for ITU to stick to the
readiness and availability issues that it does best infrastructure, standards, access,
bridging the digital divide and instead to strengthen UNGIS with its own clear and
independent mandate, funding, and secretariat. It would also make sense to draw other
and emergent UN actors into UNGIS, such as Global Pulse.
20
In the wake of the demise of the UN Global Alliance on ICT for Development (UN GAID), UNGIS is the only
cross-UN ICT4D focal structure, complementing the cross-UN ICT4D focal process of WSIS. UNGIS was initially
created to facilitate WSIS but, in 2009, its mandate was extended to a somewhat broader ICT4D facilitation
role (UNCSTD 2011).
32
This would create an appropriate ICT4D structure within the UN system (see Figure 9) with
ITU providing the broad foundation of ICT expertise, and UNGIS providing the hybrid
spearhead that connects out to all of development.
UNGIS
Secretariat
UNESCO
UNDP
UNCTAD
etc
ITU
Figure 9: Structuring ICT4D Within the UN System
This would also ensure one further essential aspect of ICT4Ds future within the UN system,
which is the continuation of WSIS beyond 2015.
C5b. Process: Continuing Multi-Stakeholder Participation
ICT4D as a domain has certainly adopted the language of multi-stakeholder participation but
has gone beyond just rhetoric in two ways, as illustrated by analysis of real-world ICT4D
policy-making (Bardelli-Danieli 2011). First, by involving participants from a variety of
sectors in the planning and design of policies and programmes. Second, by taking on the
worldview of multi-stakeholder participation such that it becomes the only conceived
benchmark for ICT4D processes. There is some hope, then, that ICT4D adheres to the
maxim that one can only create inclusive outcomes via inclusive processes.
WSIS itself fits this mould. Although I write as an occasional observer/participant of WSIS,
this perspective and more analytical sources (e.g. UNCSTD 2011), both suggest WSIS
appears to be an inclusive process that seeks to live up to its ambitions of multi-stakeholder
participation. Through analysis of submissions and documentation, one can identify a
leaning towards international organisations and governments, some civil society
involvement, and much more limited roles for business and academia. Thus there is scope
for broadening participation, and the bureaucracy and internal politics of the UN system
play their role dampening external influence. Nonetheless, overall, ICT4D and WSIS
processes can be awarded at least a glass half-full status.
33
C5c. Vision: Where is the Compelling Narrative?

ICT4D drew attention, money and other resources at the turn of the century because it was
associated with a compelling narrative. Albeit via a variety of terms, we foresaw the
creation of an information society in developing countries; delivering the e-fruits of the
global North to the global South.
At present, we have no such ICT4D narrative for post-2015 development. The technology
has fragmented with ICT4D struggling to keep hold of mobile, broadband, cloud, social
media, smartphones, etc. The development goals and sectors that ICT serves are subfragments within economic, social, political and environmental fragments.
Having never really gone away, it is hard for ICT4D to really reinvent itself with a
reinvigorated sense of what an information society is and why it matters. Current
WSIS+10 visions certainly have little to offer (WSIS 2014b). There is no defined core of an
information society, just a sweeping up of the many fragments in the hope they might
amount to something worth pursuing. The notion of an information society is qualified: in a
number of places it must be inclusive; at one point it must be people-centric, inclusive,
open and development-oriented (did someone forget to add sustainable to that list?).
The erosion of vision is in some ways understandable because ICT4D stood well ahead of
actuality in the early 2000s, offering a clear and different future destination. Over the years,
reality in developing countries has started to catch up but WSIS has not maintained its
headway: it has moved from casting visions to reflecting realities. WSIS has also fallen
victim to a path dependency that keeps it within existing tramlines: a future of the same old
action lines, and a conservatism that leads to repetition of increasingly-stale incremental
formulations instead of embracing transformative new thinking. If path dependency is
typical of institutionalised processes then fragmentation of core concepts is typical of multistakeholder processes: it is easier to keep adding phrases to please particular
constituencies. But it means information society resembles the mule in Buckaroo
increasingly over-laden, and with the only solution that it must throw off all of these loads
and boil down to a more singular and coherent vision.
ICT4D could try to join anothers army, looking for a central role within the core narratives
of post-2015 development. But those narratives are not yet clear perhaps sustainable
development; perhaps inclusive development and narratives of sustainable informatics
or inclusive informatics might give ICTs a marginal not central role in development (see
also Box 5). They would, nonetheless, be worth developing: as noted above the questions
where do ICTs fit into a sustainable development agenda? and where do ICTs fit into an
inclusive development agenda? remain unanswered.
34
Box 5: e-X, m-X, ICT4X, Informatics4X, X Informatics, Digital X, X 2.0,

etc
An ongoing theme in this review is the importance of language and labels. Among
the multiplicity on offer, such as those in this Boxs title, I dont have any specific
solutions to offer but will note a few principles:
Clarity: does the label make sense to, for example, a mainstream development
project manager? Youre allowed one go to explain it. If it doesnt stick after
that; forget it.
Techno-centricity: how technology-focused is the label? Yes, its a problem if we
are too focused on the technology and so forget the, arguably more important,
human and contextual issues. But equally we must not lose sight of the
technology which is the raison detre of the whole domain. Thats why I like
informatics which steers well between these two. Likewise, information
society.
Scope: what is covered by the label? m-X labels such as m-money cut out a
significant part of the ICT field; any X 2.0 definitions that only limit themselves
to association with Web 2.0, would do the same.
Purpose: is it clear what the technology is for? ICT4D scores well here: the
technology is not an end in itself but a means to a wider purpose. In general,
then, the ...4X formulation ...4H (health), ...4E (education) helps in this
regard.
Novelty: how new and exciting does the label sound? Humans perhaps
especially modern humans seem to crave novelty, and habituation to a label
weakens its ability to command attention and resources.21
ICT4D could try grabbing someone elses flag, claiming the data revolution as its own, and
carrying that forward at its head into post-2015 discussions. It wont be a comprehensive
narrative, but at least it would be something that smells of fresh paint.
ICT4D might try to develop its own internal narrative. The two candidates so far have barely
sputtered, let alone caught fire. Development 2.0 as discussed above, this is the ICTenabled transformation of development processes and structures remains a marginal
concept but one worth further investment given transformative development is a third
possible narrative of the post-2015 agenda alongside sustainability and inclusivity. Open
development has, thanks to IDRC, had more thought and work put into it and another
plus it reaches out well beyond the technology (Smith et al 2011). But that is also its
downside: it does not yet resonate as an ICT- or even informatics-related narrative; and it
suffers from conflicting meanings (the World Bank definition of open development offered
above is narrowed to open data and its impact on transparency and accountability; IDRCs
definition is more ambitious and potentially paradigmatic).
All that can be suggested at present, then, is exploratory moves to look for an overarching
narrative. The future role and structure of ICT4D policy and practice may well depend on
how far forward those moves are able to explore.
21
As an example, check the development hype cycle (Algoso 2014).
35
D. Conclusion: ICT4D and WSIS Beyond 2015

This paper has set out to compare the current and future direction of ICT4D with the coming
post-2015 development agenda, to assess how well ICT4D fits with the single best guide to
its future context. It has done that via text analysis, taking documentation from the
WSIS+10 process as its guide. In doing so, it makes an important assumption that WSIS
documents reflect the current content and direction of ICT4D more broadly. There is by no
means a perfect fit here as the example of mobile money illustrated. But the argument
here is not that there is a perfect fit, but that there is no other set of text that represents a
better fit. So WSIS is the best guide to ICT4D policy and practice that we have.
A core outcome was Table 2 an analysis-based guide to the main mismatches between the
future development agenda and the state-of-play with ICT4D generally and WSIS
particularly. These in descending order from the top are ICT4D/WSIS main priorities for
additional action and strengthening.
Alongside the need to break out of the ICT4D bubble, there are two other transectional
corollaries. First, that the list in Table 2 does not represent the totality of ICT4D priorities;
they represent those post-2015 topics which have been most under-represented. Thus
work on, for example, ICT infrastructure, ICTs and health, ICTs and education/learning,
ethical aspects of ICTs, etc, will need to continue during this period. And there will need to
be new work on emerging ICT topics.
Figure 10 attempts to put all this together as an ICT4D priority map. Vertically, it sorts
issues in terms of gap and, hence, priority for additional attention: the higher up the
diagram, the higher that priority. A number of the items in the upper parts of the diagram
could be used as the basis for new or amended WSIS action lines. Laterally, Figure 10 sorts
issues in terms of their relation to development (mainly types of goal, including crosscutting, but also including development mechanisms of which ICT itself is one) 22.
22
This not perfectly done: the ICT issues in the bottom half of the political column probably belong more
appropriately in the mechanisms column. The specific label terms have just been chosen to illustrate the
variety of possibilities as noted in Box 5. Development 2.0 appears as a dashed box because of the
foundational work needed to specify its content and agenda.
36
Gap
Highest
Mechanisms
Cross-Cutting
Environmental
Economic
Social
Political
e-Environment
ICTs for Sustainability
ICTs and
Development
Finance
ICTs and Poverty
ICTs for Basic

Needs
ICTs, Growth
and Jobs
Development 2.0
The Data
Revolution
e-Transparency &
e-Accountability
ICTs and Global

Flows
Urban
Informatics
ICTs, Peace
and Security
ICTs for
Resilience
ICTs Dark Side
Informatics and
Inclusivity
ICT4D Language /
Worldview
e-Health
e-Agriculture
ICT Infrastructure,
Capacity and
Environment
ICT Governance
and Policy
e-Governance
Emerging ICTs
e-Learning
Lowest
Figure 10: Map of Post-2015 ICT4D Priorities

37
ICTs, Ethics &

Culture
The second corollary is the importance of ICT4D continuing to hold a place in the
development agenda, in the global development system, in development policy, and
in individual development organisations. The 21st century brings with it many
uncertainties but one thing we can be sure of: from autonomous vehicles to robots
to drones to big data, ICT will play an ever-growing role in human life generally and
in processes of socio-economic development specifically. There has to be a
mechanism at multiple levels of governance in order to accelerate the good and
constrain the bad in what is to come.
One of those multiple levels will be the global level. WSIS has been imperfect but it
has also been vital. It is the only lever the world can pull in seeking to shape and
control the expanding digital presence in our lives. As this paper argues, WSIS can be
improved beyond 2015; it might even be revised and revived. But it cannot be done
without.
38
References
Adera, E.O., Waema, T.M., May, J., Mascarenhas, O. & Diga, K. (2014) ICT Pathways
to Poverty Reduction, Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, UK http://idlbnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/52420/1/IDL-52420.pdf
Algoso, D. (2014) Hype cycle for development ideas: 2014 edition, Find What Works,
2 Jan http://algoso.org/2014/01/02/hype-cycle-for-development-ideas-2014edition/
Bardelli-Danieli, A. (2011) Interpreting ICT Policy Processes in Developing Countries: A
Case Study of Uganda, PhD thesis, IDPM, University of Manchester, UK
Beall, J., Guha- Khasnobis, B. & Kanbur, R. (eds) (2010) Urbanisation and
Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Boehm, M. (2013) Has job polarisation squeezed the American middle class?,
CentrePiece, Autumn, 7-9
Burt, D., Nicholas, P., Sullivan, K. & Scoles, T. (2014) The Cybersecurity Risk Paradox,
Microsoft, Redmond, WA
Chalabi, M. (2013) Global peace index 2013, Datablog, 11 Jun
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/11/global-peace-index-2013
Davies, T., Perini, F. & Alonso, J.M. (2013) Researching the Emerging Impact of Open
Data, ODDC Working Paper 1, Open Data Research Network
http://www.opendataresearch.org/sites/default/files/posts/Researching%20the%20
emerging%20impacts%20of%20open%20data.pdf
Demerouti, E., Derks, D., ten Brummelhuis, L.L. & Bakker, A.B. (2014) New ways of
working: impact on working conditions, work-family balance, and well-being, in: The
Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life, C. Korunka & P. Hoonakker (eds), Springer,
Heidelberg, 123-141
DI (2013a) Official Development Assistance (ODA) Factsheet, Development
Initiatives, Bristol http://devinit.org/factsheet/factsheet-oda/
DI (2013b) Mobilising All Resources to Meet the Post-2015 Goals, Development
Initiatives, Bristol http://devinit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Mobilising-allresources-to-meet-the-post-2015-goals1.pdf
DSD (2014) Working Document for the Eleventh Session of the Open Working Group
on SDGs, Division for Sustainable Development, UN Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, New York, NY
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3686WorkingDoc_0205
_additionalsupporters.pdf
39
ESS (2013) Big Data for Social Good, Engineering Social Systems, University of
Harvard, Cambridge, MA http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ess/bigdata.html
Foster, C. & Heeks, R. (2013) Innovation and scaling of ICT for the bottom-of-thepyramid, Journal of Information Technology, 28(4), 296-315
Global Pulse (2013) United Nations Global Pulse, United Nations, New York, NY
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/GP%20BackgrounderGeneral2013_Sept2013.pdf
GSMA (2014) MMU Deployment Tracker, GSMA, London
http://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/programmes/mobile-money-for-theunbanked/insights/tracker
Haikin, M. & Duncombe, R. (2013) A Framework to Assess Participation and
Empowerment Impacts of ICT4D Projects, Development Informatics Working Paper
55, Centre for Development Informatics, University of Manchester, UK
Heeks, R. (1999) The Tyranny of Participation in Information Systems: Learning from
Development Projects, Development Informatics Working Paper 4, Centre for
Development Informatics, University of Manchester, UK
Heeks, R. (2010a) Mainstreaming ICTs in development: the case against, ICT4DBlog,
30 Oct http://ict4dblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/mainstreaming-icts-indevelopment-the-case-against/
Heeks, R. (2010b) Development 2.0: the IT-enabled transformation of international
development, Communications of the ACM, 53(4), 22-24
Heeks, R. (2010c) Do information and communication technologies (ICTs) contribute
to development?, Journal of International Development, 22(5), 625-640
Heeks, R. (2013a) Development informatics research must stop ignoring ICTs
downsides, ICT4DBlog, 23 May
https://ict4dblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/development-informatics-researchmust-stop-ignoring-icts-downsides/
Heeks, R. (2013b) Information technology impact sourcing, Communications of the
ACM, 56(12), 22-25
Heeks, R. (2013c) eCitizens: Connecting Citizens and Government, Centre for
40
Heeks, R. (2014a) From the MDGs to the Post-2015 Agenda: Analysing Changing
Development Priorities, Development Informatics Working Paper 56, Centre for
Heeks, R. (2014b) Future Priorities for Development Informatics Research from the
Post-2015 Development Agenda, Development Informatics Working Paper 57, Centre
for Development Informatics, University of Manchester, UK
Heeks, R. (2014c) ICTs and Poverty Eradication: Comparing Economic, Livelihoods and
Capabilities Models, Development Informatics Working Paper 58, Centre for
Heeks, R.B. & Ospina, A.V. (2013) Understanding Urban Climate Change and Digital
Infrastructure Interventions from a Resilience Perspective, Development Informatics
Working Paper 54, Centre for Development Informatics, University of Manchester,
UK http://www.seed.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/
Hewitt, J.J., Wilkenfeld, J., Gurr, T.D. & Heldt, B. (eds) (2012) Peace and Conflict 2012,
Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/pc/executive_summary/exec_sum_2012.pdf
HLP (2013) A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty And Transform Economies
Through Sustainable Development, High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons, United
Nations, New York http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UNReport.pdf
ITU (2003) The Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, International
Telecommunication Union, Geneva
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/promotional/brochure-dop-poa.pdf
ITU (2013) WSIS Forum 2013 Outcome Document, International Telecommunication
Union, Geneva
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/inc/doc/outcome/S-POLWSIS.OD_FORUM-2013-PDF-E.pdf
ITU (2014a) WSIS+10 High-Level Event, International Telecommunication Union,
Geneva
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/mpp/WSIS10.hlefinal.briefing_presentation.pdf
ITU (2014b) Statistics, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx
41
Lazzarato, M. (2009) Neoliberalism in action, Theory, Culture & Society, 26(6), 109133
Light, A. (2010) Bridging global divides with tracking and tracing technology,
Pervasive Computing, 9(2), 28-36
Mansaray, M. L. (1992) ASYCUDA: a framework for an integrated socio-economic
development of ECOWAS countries, in: Social Implications of Computers in
Developing Countries, S.C. Bhatnagar & M. Odedra (eds), Tata McGraw-Hill, New
Delhi, 244-260
Marais, M. (2013) An analysis of the factors affecting the sustainability of ICT4D
initiatives, paper presented at IDIA2011, Lima, Peru, 26-28 Oct
Maslow, A. (1943) A theory of human motivation, Psychology Review, 50, 370-396
Molony, T. (2012) ICT and mobility, Information Technology for Development, 18(2),
87-90
Murphy, J.T., Carmody, P. & Surborg, B. (2014) Industrial transformation or business
as usual? Information and communication technologies and Africa's place in the
global information economy, Review of African Political Economy, 41(140), 264-283
Nafziger, E.W. (2006) From Seers to Sen: The Meaning of Economic Development,
Research Paper 2006/20, UNU WIDER, Helsinki, Finland
http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/researchpapers/2006/en_GB/rp2006-20/
Narasimhan, R. (1983) The socioeconomic significance of information technology to
developing countries, The Information Society, 2(1), 65-79
ODI (2013) What kind of data revolution do we need for post-2015?, Post2015.org, 5
Nov http://post2015.org/2013/11/05/launch-of-a-new-blog-series-what-kind-ofdata-revolution-do-we-need-for-post-2015/
Osei-Bryson, K.-M. & Vogel, D. (2014) Special issue on cyber-security for
development, Information Technology for Development, 20(2), 93-95
Ospina, A.V. & Heeks, R. (2012) The Future Research Agenda for ICTs, Climate Change
and Development, Centre for Development Informatics, University of Manchester,
UK
http://www.niccd.org/sites/default/files/ICCD_Future_Research_Agenda_Strategy_
Brief.pdf
Ospina, A.V., Faulkner, D., Dickerson, K. & Bueti, C. (2014) Resilient Pathways: The
Adaptation of the ICT Sector to Climate Change, International Telecommunication
42
Union, Geneva http://www.itu.int/en/ITUT/climatechange/Documents/Publications/Resilient_Pathways-E.PDF

Pant, L. & Heeks, R. (2011) ICT-Enabled Development of Capacity for Climate Change
Adaptation, Centre for Development Informatics, University of Manchester, UK
http://www.niccd.org/sites/default/files/PantHeeksClimateChangeAdaptationICTs.p
df
Pinker, S. (2011) Violence vanquished, The Wall Street Journal, 24 Sept
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240531119041067045765832035894
08180
Punamaki, R.-L., Wallenius, M., Nygard, C.-H., Saarni, L. & Rimpela, A. (2007) Use of
information and communication technology (ICT) and perceived health in
adolescence, Journal of Adolescence, 30(4), 569-585
Ragnedda, M. & Muschert, G.W. (eds) (2013) The Digital Divide: The Internet and
Social Inequality in International Perspective, Routledge, London
Rauniyar, G. & Kanbur, R. (2009) Inclusive Growth and Inclusive Development,
Occasional Paper 8, Asian Development Bank, Bangkok
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/OP8-inclusive-growth-development.pdf
Rea, J. (2011) Growth comes full circle, The Networker, May-July, 6-7
http://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/The_Networker_MayJuly_2011_issue_97_high_res.pdf
Renken, J. & Heeks, R. (2013) Conceptualising ICT4D project champions, in:
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information and Communication
Technologies and Development, Vol. 2, 128-131
Roseveare, N. (2011) Coming full circle, The Networker, May-July, p.3
http://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/The_Networker_MayJuly_2011_issue_97_high_res.pdf
Schop, C. (2009) Maslows hierarchy of needs, Safety Needs, 22 Jul
SDSN (2013) An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development, Sustainable
Development Solutions Networks, Paris http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/11/An-ActionAgenda-for-Sustainable-Development.pdf
Seers, D. (1969) The Meaning of Development, Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/themeaningofdevelopment.pdf
Sigman, A. (2011) Does not compute, revisited, in: Too Much, Too Soon?, R. House
(ed.), Hawthorn Press, Stroud, UK, 265-288
43
Smith, M.L., Elder, L. & Emdon, H. (2011) Open development: a new theory for
ICT4D, Information Technologies and International Development, 7(1), iii-ix
Stiglitz, J.E. (2012) The Price of Inequality, WW Norton, New York, NY
Streeten, P. (1984) Basic needs: some unsettled questions, World Development,
12(9), 973-978
Tarafdar, M., Gupta, A. & Turel, O. (2013) The dark side of information technology
use, Information Systems Journal, 23, 269-275
Theron, P. & Bologna, S. (eds) (2013) Critical Information Infrastructure Protection
and Resilience in the ICT Sector, IGI Global, Hershey, PA
Thompson, M. (2008) ICT and development studies: towards development 2.0,
Journal of International Development, 20(6), 821-835
UN (2012) Realizing the Future We Want for All, United Nations, New York, NY
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/untt_report.pdf
UN (2013) A Renewed Global Partnership for Development, United Nations, New
York, NY
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/glob_dev_rep_
2013.pdf
UNCSTD (2011) Implementing WSIS Outcomes: Experience to Date and Prospects for
the Future, UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, Geneva
http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes5/dtlstict2011d3_en.pdf
UNCTAD (2010) Information Economy Report 2010: ICTs, Enterprise and Poverty
Alleviation, UNCTAD, Geneva
UNCTAD (2012) Information Economy Report 2012: The Software Industry and
Developing Countries, UNCTAD, Geneva
UNDP (2011) Towards Human Resilience, United Nations Development Programme,
New York, NY
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Poverty%20Reduction/Towards_S
ustainingMDG_Web1005.pdf
UNESCO (2013) Information and Knowledge for All: An Expanded Vision and a
Renewed Commitment, UNESCO, Paris
http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/2013.WSIS10_Final-Statement_EN.HD.pdf
44
UNGA (2012) The Future We Want, A/RES/66/288, United Nations General Assembly,
New York, NY
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E
UN-HABITAT (2012) Input to Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, UN-HABITAT,
Nairobi, Kenya
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/groupb_unhabit
at_suscities.pdf
van Stijn, E., Klievink, B. & Tan, Y.-H. (2011) Innovative ICT solutions for monitoring
and facilitating international Trade, Network Industries Quarterly, 13(3), 26-29
WCED (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
WEF (2013) Global Risks 2013, World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland
http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2013-eighth-edition
Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2010) The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for
Everyone, Penguin Books, London
World Bank (2001) What is Sustainable Development, World Bank, Washington, DC
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/sd.html
World Bank (2014) Open Development, World Bank, Washington, DC
http://www.worldbank.org/open/
WSIS (2013a) WSIS+10 Visioning Challenge: WSIS Beyond 2015, World Summit on the
Information Society, Geneva
http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/WSIS10_Visioning_Challenge-V4.pdf
WSIS (2013b) Identifying Emerging Trends and a Vision Beyond 2015, World Summit
on the Information Society, Geneva
http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/emerging.trends.2012-2013.pdf
WSIS (2014a) WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, World
Summit on the Information Society, Geneva
http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/pages/consolidated-texts.html#statement
WSIS (2014b) WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, World Summit on the
Information Society, Geneva
http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/pages/consolidated-texts.html#vision
45
Appendix A: Most Frequently-Appearing Terms in WSIS+10

Documentation
The table lists the twenty most frequently-appearing terms within the reviewed
WSIS+10 documentation, from among those terms used within the current analysis,
selected on the basis of their frequency per 10,000 words of text.
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Term
ICT
Information
Government
Access*
Process*
Technol*
Stakehold*
Internet
Communicat*
Policy/Policies
Knowledge
Particip*
Digital
Education
Implementation
Public
Innovati*
Data
Environment*
Open
46
Freq. per
10,000 Words
98.0
76.1
50.1
44.2
39.4
39.2
37.3
36.5
33.8
25.8
24.9
23.9
22.8
22.2
19.3
19.2
18.5
17.8
17.7
17.0
Appendix B: Composition of Key Development Issues

The table shows the component words/terms that were aggregated to form the 25
key development issues reported in the main text. Coverage is not comprehensive
of every possible term and issue but as explained in Heeks (2014a), these were
developed on the basis of both word counts and broader literature review.
DEVELOPMENT GOALS
MDGs 1-6
Growth and Jobs
Rural/Agricultural Development
Urban Development
Institutional Development
Rights and Justice
Livelihoods
Migration
Manufacturing
Services
Infrastructure
Insecurity
47
Poverty
Hunger
Education
Child
Women
Gender
Girl
Maternal
Health
Mortality
HIV/AIDS
Malaria
Growth
Enterprise
Entrepreneur
Employ*
Job
Agric*
Rural
Urban
City/Cities [whole words]
Governance
Institution
Politic*
Justice
Rights
Social Justice
Livelihood
Capabilit*
Vulnerab*
Migra*
Manufacturing
Services
Infrastructur*
Conflict
Humanitarian
Violen*
War(s) [whole words]
MDG 8
Wellbeing
Environment and Sustainability
Open Development
DEVELOPMENT MECHANISMS
Informatics
Peace
Security
Trade
Least developed
Landlocked
Small island
Debt
Drug
Psychol*
Happy/Happiness
Well-being/Wellbeing
Environment*
Sustainab*
Climate Change
Energy
Disaster
Waste
Open [not Copenhagen]
Transparen*
Accountab*
Corrup*
Inclusi*
(In)equalit*
Exclusion/Excluded
Diversity [whole word]
Grassroot
Disab*
ICT [specific term]

Information
Digital
Data
Mobile
Technovation
Scien*
Technol*
Innovati*
Traditional Development Finance Aid [whole word]
ODA
Donor
New Development Finance
Tax
Remittance
Philanthrop*
New Stakeholders
Business
48
Communit*
Stakehold*
Cooperation
Partnership
Collab*
Particip*
Implementation
Delivery
Management
Process*
Evaluat*
Monitor
Strateg*
Law
Policy/Policies
DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES
Complex Adaptive Systems
49
Resilien*
Complex/Complic*
Agile
Uncertain
Volatil*
System*
Connec*
Adapt*
Shock(s) [whole words]
Risk
Appendix C: Differences Between Post-2015 and ICT4D/WSIS+10 Text

Two tables are shown here. The first Table C1 calculates comparative
frequencies between WSIS+10 and post-2015 documentation for a series of
individual terms. The lower the number below zero, the more the term is underrepresented in WSIS documentation compared to post-2015 documentation. The
higher the number above zero, the more it is over-represented. Some of these
terms are stand-alone, and some are used as the basis (see Appendix B) for
aggregated issues, which are shown in the second table; Table C2.
In both tables, as in Figure 1, the statistic shown is created in the following manner:
A represents the absolute difference in frequency of occurrences per 10,000
words, subtracting the PTDA figure from the WSIS figure.
R represents the relative difference for these statistics: dividing the absolute
difference by the PTDA figure.
The standard deviation of A and R is calculated for all data shown (a somewhat
rough-and-ready calculation given the data is unlikely to be normally
distributed): SA and SR.
The measure shown is calculated as the average deviation of each entry: ((A/SA)
+ (R/SR))/2.
Individual Development Issue
Sustainab*
Poverty
Partnership
Finan*
System*
Food
Energy
Economic
Resource
Social
Environment*
Accountab*
Water
Growth
Trade
Income
Equalit* [inc. inequalit*]
Institution
Job
Violen*
Transform*
Peace
Aid [whole word]
50
Difference of
ICT4D (WSIS+10)
from PTDA
-4.2
-1.6
-1.4
-1.4
-1.2
-1.1
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.7
-0.7
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
Migra*
Rights [whole word - not
copyright]
Nutrition
Land [whole word]
Debt
Law [whole word]
Sanitation
Child
Climate Change
State(s) [whole words]
Urban
Livelihood
Conflict
Health
Vulnerab*
Poor
Politic*
Risk
Population
Resilien*
Justice
Green
Social Protection
Food Security
Hunger
Small island
Bank*
ODA
Carbon
City/Cities [whole words]
Market
Transparen*
Donor
Monitor
Tax
Disaster
Least developed
Mortality
Cooperation
Corrup*
Crisis/Crises
51
Difference of
ICT4D (WSIS+10)
from PTDA
-0.6
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
Philanthrop*
Fragil*
Shock(s) [whole words]
Landlocked
HIV/AIDS
Renewable
Commodit*
Investment
Volatil*
Maternal
Malaria
Remittance
Employ*
Hope
Drug
Well-being/Wellbeing
Housing
Uncertain
Impact
Girl
Faith
Energy Security
Productivity
Agric*
Emotion
Exclusion/Excluded
Social Justice
Leaders*
Minorit*
Money
Women
Female
Oil [whole word]
Waste
Shelter
Management
Gender
Business
Humanitarian
Geograph*
Terror*
Inclusi*
52
Difference of
ICT4D (WSIS+10)
from PTDA
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
Complex/Complic*
Adapt*
War(s) [whole words]
Local
Religi*
Implementation
Woman
Capabilit*
Rural
Capacit*
Delivery
Policy/Policies
Public
Communit*
Security
Grassroot
Militar*
Youth
Diversity [whole word]
Governance
Manufactur*
Education
Enterprise
Emerging
Scien*
Free*
Skill
Private
Collab*
Disab*
Strateg*
Civil Society
Services
Learning
Access*
Open [not open consultation]
Entrepreneur
Evaluat*
Citizen
Particip*
Regulat*
Innovati*
53
Difference of
ICT4D (WSIS+10)
from PTDA
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Infrastructur*
Moral [not morale]
Culture [whole word]
Technol*
Non-gov/NGO
Competit*
Process*
Government
Stakehold*
Universit*
Ethic*
Difference of
ICT4D (WSIS+10)
from PTDA
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.4
5.6
Table C1: ICT4D Gap Measure for Individual Terms

Note that Table C1 excludes terms related to informatics which are all inherently
over-represented in WSIS documentation compared to PTDA documentation. It also
excludes terms not present in the PTDA documentation since they would return null
values for percentage change (these are: commerce, weapon, nuclear, psychol*,
happy/happiness, corporate social, agile, chao* and privacy).
54
Aggregated Development
Issue
Environment and
Sustainability
MDGs 1-6
MDG 8
Traditional Development
Finance
Complex Adaptive Systems
Growth and Jobs
Insecurity
Urban Development
Migra*
Livelihoods
New Development Finance
Rights and Justice
Institutional Development
Open Development
Wellbeing
Rural/Agricultural
Development
New Stakeholders
Services
Manufactur*
Technovation
Infrastructur*
Informatics
Difference of
ICT4D (WSIS+10)
from PTDA
-1.4
-0.7
-0.5
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
4.3
Table C2: ICT4D Gap Measure for Aggregated Issues
55
Appendix D: ICT4D Value Chain Emphases Within WSIS+10

Documentation
The table below shows the frequency of appearance in WSIS+10 documentation of
terms associated with the four stages of the ICT4D value chain (see Figures 7 and 8).
Aggregate Term/ Constituent Terms
Value Chain Stage
Readiness
Readiness
Infrastructur*
Divide(s) [whole words]
Availability
Availability
Design
Implementation
Uptake
Uptake
Adopt*
Scal*
Impact
Impact
Output
Benefit
56
Freq. per
10,000 Words
20.6
0.3
14.9
5.4
28.3
2.8
6.1
19.3
8.4
0.5
5.5
2.5
17.0
7.3
0.3
9.4

ICT4D Training Scholarship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICT4D Training Scholarship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICT4D Training Scholarship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development Informatics

Working Paper Series

D. Conclusion: ICT4D and WSIS Beyond 2015 .............................................. 36

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

ICT4D 2016: New Priorities for ICT4D Policy,

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Table 1: Summarising Changes in Development Issues from MDGs to Post-2015 Agenda

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

B. Analysis of ICT4D Policy and Practice via WSIS+10

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

to encourage the development of content and to put in place technical

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

C. Future Priorities for ICT4D and WSIS Beyond 2015

C1. Potentially Well-Covered ICT4D Areas

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

C2. Informatics-Centred ICT4D Priorities

Divergence from Average

Figure 2: Relative WSIS vs. PTDA Prevalence of Informatics-Centred Terms

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Box 3: From ICTs to Informatics; From ICT4D to I4D Changing the

C2a. The Dark Side of ICT4D

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

C3. New Development-Oriented Priorities for ICT4D and WSIS

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Table 2: Top Post-2015 ICT4D Gaps

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Figure 3: The Components of Sustainable Development

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Figure 4: Global ICT Developments 2001-2013

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

C3d. Development Finance

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Figure 5: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Food/hunger: ICT applications to strengthen food storage and distribution; improved

C3f. Economic Development: Growth, Jobs and the Digital Economy

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Figure 6: A Data-Oriented View of Transparency and Accountability

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

C3i. Peace and Security

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

connection in all this to sustainability informatics, the specific issue of resilience

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

C4. Transformative Development and Development 2.0

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59

Figure 7: The ICT4D Value Chain

Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 59