Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 20:29:29 -0500
To: <[log in to unmask]>
From: Bram Dov Abramson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Hold the phone
> > Seriously? Cause, I know this may be surprising, but there are
places
> > where the state disengaged its responsability toward the majority of
> > the people quite a while ago, and in ways better described by Chinua
> > Achebe than by Ignacio Ramonet. No, things are not exactly rosy,
but
> > it helps when you're allowed to put together a telephony project
> > without working for the government.
>
>Like Bram, I've read the WIRED articles extolling the virtues of
>small/medium entrepreneurs in Africa, putting up telecom
>and internet xs against all odds, especially those coming
>from a suspicious and corrupt bureaucracy.
Not to drag the threat out eternally, but I am mightily confused as to
wherefore this constant reference to Wired Magazine. Again, this may be
surprising, but Wired magazine does not have a monopoly of knowledge on
telecom infrastructure development in Africa or anywhere else.
In fact, I daresay that Wired's tourist dilettantism -- look! you'd
never
have guessed but they've got Internet there, too! just like us! etc. --
is
one of the more noxious lenses through which to understand much about
telecom infrastructure development in very many places. Yes, there have
been good pieces from time to time (Neal Stephenson's feature on
submarine
cables some years ago remains a classic), but this is not exactly where
they shine.
>be ascribed to World Bank/IMF imposed 'structural adjustments'. Hence
the
>pragmatic solution seems to be: 'dunk the state, it does not work
anyway',
I think that's called, not pragmatic, but silly. In the absence of a
democratic state, many things become difficult. Of course, it is also
true
that in the absence of a democratic state, life goes on, and one has to
do
something about it. Hence the advantage in decoupling the right to
engage
in telecom infrastructure activity with the obligation of working for
the PTT.
>My point is simply that 'the market' will not, *never*, ensure
universal
>access and
>service.
Oh good. We agree.
Another point: when a highly nondemocratic state is in place, democratic
reform is one important place to pour one's energy; building democratic
institutions -- without routing them through a corrupt bureaucracy,
whether
the state's or various companies' -- is another.
A further point: labelling everything that *isn't* routed through
corrupt
bureaucracy as "the market" is an odd way of going about things indeed.
I
think there are a couple of non-governmental actors here and there who
might quibble. And so forth.
cheers
Bram
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|