e‐Governance for Development: A Focus on Rural India

Citation

Mansell, R. (2010), "e‐Governance for Development: A Focus on Rural India", Information Technology & People, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 281-282. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841011069176

As Stiglitz (2010) says, in a “battle of ideas” failed policies can result when misguided models and theories prevail, in his argument, with respect to financial markets and the economy. In this book, Shirin Madon provides us with a convincing analysis of the battle of ideas over how to put information and communication technologies (ICTs) to work in support of services provided by public authorities for rural citizens. The prevailing wisdom is that a more or less standardised model for the provision of computerised and networked services will assist the poor. Madon demonstrates just how misguided this is. Based on extended field research, she examines cases where ICT‐based information systems have been introduced to support self‐employment programmes, health systems and telecentres. Her analysis reveals why the idea that simple models – often borrowed from experience in the wealthy countries – cannot straightforwardly offer solutions to the needs of rural populations, in this instance, in India.

Madon traces the origins of the prevailing approaches to e‐governance, demonstrating amply how they go against the grain of ideas and practices aimed at enabling local populations to be engaged with, and find value in, innovations in the means by which public authorities seek to invest in improving livelihoods. Madon considers issues of governance that may involve actors from the private and civil society sectors as well as governments. With respect to e‐governance possibilities, there are strongly contested ideas about good practices. There are those who persist in top‐down initiatives and those who argue fervently for bottom‐up initiatives, or for initiatives that are sensitive to the multiple interactions between the local, regional, national and global, in the latter cases, acknowledging that the power relations are asymmetrical and context specific.

The international development community's advocacy of the use of ICTs for “enhancing the efficiency, accessibility and democratic accountability of public administration and collective decision‐making” is infused with the notion that outcomes in line with these goals are either automatic or always consistent with the needs of the poor. Madon argues that where technological solutions are privileged and social relations are neglected, investment in projects of this kind may make little difference to, or even worsen, the lives of the poor. India provides a good setting for a criticism of the prevailing models and practices of e‐governance, not the least because many states in India have invested heavily in ICTs. If the prevailing approach is valid, it is in this country that we should find corroborating evidence, and we do not.

A critical review of the literature on development and the rise of the “managerialist agenda” which neglects social reform; the “good governance” agenda which downplays the need for greater accountability of existing social, administrative and political systems; and the “e‐governance for development” discourse, provides the basis for a theoretical exposition of the flaws in these arguments and for a coherent framework for analysis of the empirical evidence. In the second part of the book, Madon sets out the time frame, locations and methods used in gathering evidence, reviews Indian policy interventions aimed at improving e‐governance, and provides a detailed analysis of selected e‐governance applications. The final part concludes with a reflection on the importance of insisting on an emphasis on governance and development, rather than on the “e”.

Madon argues that locally specific governance practices are central to improving the record of application of ICTs in the name of development. This is illustrated, for example, in a case where the elimination of a local village accountant results in worsened conditions for the poor despite a project aimed at computerising land records; where the performance criteria imposed for the monitoring of outcomes associated with a management information system to support self‐employment bears no relationship to the barriers faced by those seeking to improve their lives; or where the collection of disease‐related data has little bearing on the daily decisions faced by government health fieldworkers.

Above all, Madon emphasises the importance of the information interfaces between local administrations and communities that need to be nurtured and monitored. She insists on the need to understand local, informal systems of human organisation and ways in which they can be sustained so as to foster, not only the capacity for change, but also the resources or capabilities for change, and the abilities (literacies) to evaluate competing ideas for change. This emphasis differs substantially from managerial approaches focusing on “the plan”, “the technology” and “the market‐led solution”.

Policy‐makers, academic researchers and students will benefit from reading this book. In addition to comprehensive bibliographies, Madon offers an important, empirically well‐grounded, counter to prevailing wisdom about e‐governance in theory and in practice. Critical assessment of the state‐of‐the‐art of research in this area has found it severely wanting (Heeks and Bailure, 2007). Madon's insights set us on a fruitful trajectory which should be pursued to avert the damage that is done by pursuing courses of action towards e‐governance without regard to the important lessons to be drawn here.