media culture society 2007 leye 972 93

7/30/2019 Media Culture Society 2007 Leye 972 93

1/23

http://mcs.sagepub.com/Media, Culture & Society

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0163443707081711

2007 29: 972Media Culture SocietyVeva Leye

modernization resurrectedUNESCO, ICT corporations and the passion of ICT for development:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Media, Culture & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://mcs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 7, 2007Version of Record>>

at CHRIST COLG on January 9, 2013mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972http://www.sagepublications.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://mcs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972.refs.htmlhttp://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972.refs.htmlhttp://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972.full.pdfhttp://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972.full.pdfhttp://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://mcs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/972http://mcs.sagepub.com/


2/23

UNESCO, ICT corporations and the passion ofICT for development: modernization resurrected

Veva LeyeGHENT UNIVERSITY, BELGIUM

RESEARCH FOUNDATION-FLANDERS (FWO)

Critically examining United Nations (UN) partnerships with the private sectoris not about unveiling a conspiracy (McLaughlin, 2005: 58). But, especiallysince the debate on the role of ICT (information and communication technol-ogy) corporations in development efforts at the UN is a new one and has hith-erto been mainly discussed in terms of best practices only (Lovink and Zehle,2005: 4, 7), it is important to take a closer look at the context and underlying

assumptions which frame these partnerships, the various interests of the differ-ent partners and the consequences these cooperative projects can have. As thereis hardly any independent monitoring or evaluation of these initiatives, it is hardto find data about outcomes. In our opinion, this absence of information exem-plifies the pervasiveness of the discourse on ICT for development (ICT4D):the idea that ICT per se will lead to development is omnipresent and, as such,it is simply unnecessary to produce data to substantiate this view.

This article places the ICT for development discourse, which is the con-ceptual linchpin of these partnerships, within the broader information soci-

ety discourse. This paradigm focuses on the transition Western societies aresaid to have made from the industrial age to the post-industrial or informationage. Information and knowledge, instead of the manufacturing of goods, havebecome the (intangible) drivers of the economy. While the early visions of theinformation society in the 1970s stressed the fact that the telecommunicationsinfrastructure should be treated as a public service, the Reagan- and Thatcher-induced shifts in the political climate in the 1980s led to a market-based andprivate sector driven approach ( Siochr, 2004: 2046). This particularvision was pursued at the international level in the 1990s with Al Gores call

Media, Culture & Society 2007 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, NewDelhi and Singapore), Vol. 29(6): 972993[ISSN: 0163-4437 DOI: 10.1177/0163443707081711]

http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/


3/23

Leye, UNESCO and ICT corporations 973

for a Global Information Infrastructure (GII) and the 1995 G7 MinisterialConference on the information society, and it is still the dominant approach

today (Van Audenhove and Nulens, 2003: 24851). The bigger part of thisinformation society discourse enunciates a technodeterministic, utopianpromise of social, economic and political benefits in a radically different soci-etal context. We think it more appropriate, though, to interpret these ICT-based developments as just another phase in the development of capitalism(Preston, 2001: 1619), benefiting transnational corporations disproportion-ately (Schiller, 1999: xiv). Despite all the rhetoric, informational capitalismhas, while generating ever increasing returns for a minority in the weightlesseconomy, brought about deepening wealth and income inequalities in bothdeveloped and developing countries (Parayil, 2005: 48). Elaborating onMattelarts observation that the information society programme arose at thesame time as the end of ideology paradigm (2003: 2), it is our opinion thatthese entwined discourses lead us in a very specific direction, namely that ofa neoliberal world order which in the process is legitimized as the commonsense, natural state of affairs. In this new world order all international actorsor stakeholders are collaboratively contributing to the same project, in amanner reminiscent of corporatism and leaving few options for alternativedevelopment visions. This article argues that, despite the liberal, counterbal-ancing aura which is (still) ascribed to UNESCO (United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the agencys ethicalapproach to the information society and its partnerships with ICT corpora-tions basically endorse this world-view and ignore structural political, eco-nomic and political economic inequalities.

Private sector cooperation in the United Nations system

For quite some time now, private sector participation in the multilateral system

has been increasing. These mostly new forms of cooperation, which rangefrom global initiatives including several stakeholders to operational partner-ships in individual communities, have grown both in scale and impact. Theappearance of these partnerships has been described as an almost inevitableevolution, since member states have been unwilling or unable to providefinancing for development through the UN system, which has led to the severefinancial crisis the UN is still witnessing. To fill this gap, cooperation with pri-vate corporations has been welcomed as substitute money. Other factors thathave contributed to this trend are the ideological shift whereby neoliberalism

and its privatization and private sector involvement rationale became eventu-ally influential in the UN, and the alignment of UN leadership with this hege-monic neoliberal discourse (Bull et al., 2004: 4815; McLaughlin, 2005: 50).Some argue that this evolution constitutes the corporatization of development,brought about by the widespread belief that there are no longer alternatives to



4/23

974 Media, Culture & Society 29(6)

the neoliberal imperative and that development will come about through theforces of the marketplace. While proponents argue that this private sector

involvement will lead to greater flexibility of the UN system, critics argue thatit may lead to fragmentation of development efforts. Moreover, it is feared thatit leads to ad hoc funding, with resources used for projects which the privatesector prefers and leaving areas with few investment prospects out of the pic-ture (Bull et al., 2004: 4868). The UN business programme with the highestprofile is the Global Compact, which is composed of 10 shared values andprinciples in the fields of human rights, labour rights, environmental protectionand anti-corruption. It is a voluntary initiative that seeks to mainstream the 10principles in business activities throughout the world while catalysing actionsin support of UN goals. The Global Compact is contested because it offers cor-porations the opportunity to influence policy-making at the UN and countrylevel, to promote their own products and reach for new markets, to keep theirissues at the top of the UN agenda and to promote their public image throughthe association of the brands name with the UNs good reputation (Paine,2000). The agreement furthermore contains no enforceable rules, but merevalues and principles, the respecting of which is not monitored or evaluated(Global Policy Forum, 2005).

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the two-phasesummit that took place in Geneva (Switzerland) in December 2003 and in Tunis

(Tunisia) in November 2005, has been another process facilitating publicprivate ICT partnerships at the multilateral level. The organization of the sum-mit recognized different stakeholders: member states, the private sector, civilsociety and UN organizations. However, multiple opportunities were given tothe private sector to defend its stakes: through individual accreditations,through the older collective representation organizations like the CoordinatingCommittee of Business Interlocutors (CCBI) and through government dele-gations, which are very receptive to the interests of their businesses and some-times almost act as their spokespersons (Raboy and Landry, 2004: 39, 43, 75,

84). So, instead of focusing on the WSIS official output documents, it may bemore interesting to examine those other WSIS outcomes, namely the numer-ous publicprivate partnerships that have been forged among UN agencies,governments, corporations and some civil society organizations during theWSIS process (McLaughlin, 2006).

The partnerships of UNESCO with the private sector take place within theframework of the UN Global Compact. The primary purpose is stated to bethe promotion of linkages and dialogue through which private and corporateentities can contribute to peace, development and other UNESCO goals

(UNESCO, n.d.e). Sustainable development and the creation of wealththrough commercial activity are thought to be closely linked (UNESCO,n.d.g). One of the functions of cooperation with the private sector is to har-ness markets for development: while providing access to markets and help-ing to bridge or deepen markets by providing incentives for business to invest,these partnerships will contribute to the development of sustainable markets



5/23


(UNESCO, n.d.f). The market solution to development approach is pursuedin UNESCOs cultural sector with the Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity,

which focuses on local communities and developing countries and which, inorder to leverage the dormant capital of cultural activities [] matches theorganizations that have something to offer skills, know-how, technicaladvice or financial support with practitioners in the cultural industries whoneed help to flourish and succeed in business (UNESCO, 2003). The fram-ing of this initiative is awkward, to say the least, since the organization,through the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the Conventionon the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, isthought by many to be (symbolically) counterbalancing the World TradeOrganizations (WTO) perspective on culture. This overt market approachcomes as no surprise though, at a time when even the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP), whose Human Development Reportswere originally conceived as an alternative to economic growth analyses(Paine, 2000), is promoting selling to the bottom of the pyramid strategiesand looking for a viable business model for poor communities around theglobe (Microsoft and UNDP, 2004).

UNESCO and Microsoft

On 17 November 2004, UNESCO and Microsoft Corporation signed an agree-ment, announced as a Cooperation Agreement to Help Bridge the DigitalDivide in UNESCOs press release (2004b). Microsoft thereby joined thecoalition of major private sector partners supporting UNESCOs global strat-egy to draw on information and communication technologies to improve edu-cation, social and economic development worldwide (UNESCO, 2004b). It isa strategic partnership, which means that it is based on the exchange of knowl-edge and experience rather than on funding. Nevertheless, the agreement

opens up the possibility of more private sector participation, as the projectsthat will be a part of the agreement will draw on the cooperation with a vari-ety of partners: the private sector, government, intergovernmental organiza-tions and civil society actors. The relationship between the two partners is notexclusive; UNESCO, in line with paragraph 27 of the 2003 WSIS Declarationof Principles, continues to support different software models, including pro-prietary, open source and free software. The partnership is implicitly presented as a win-win situation. UNESCOs Director-General KochiroMatsuura believes that the partnership can help to put into practice the inter-national strategic partnership envisioned by the United Nations to bridge thedigital divide:

We have a greater chance of accelerating social and economic development if wework collectively than if each organization works in isolation.[] The effective useof information and communication technologies can play a major role in buildinghuman capacities for sustainable livelihoods. (UNESCO, 2004b)

http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/http://mcs.sagepub.com/


6/23


Bill Gates, Microsofts Chairman and Chief Software Architect, says thecompany is honoured to partner with UNESCO, as [t]echnology is a crucial

resource in todays world, but remains beyond the reach of millions of peo-ple. We hope to play a part in changing that (UNESCO, 2004b).The Cooperation Agreement, which normally will remain in effect for five

years, states that UNESCO and Microsoft have identified eight areas wherethey plan to cooperate to the benefit of society and communities, especiallyin developing countries. These are:

Education and learningCommunity access and developmentCultural and linguistic diversity and preservation

Digital inclusion and capacity-buildingExchange and promotion of best practices on the use of ICT for socio-economic development programmesFostering web-based communities of practice, including content develop-ment, knowledge-sharing and empowerment through participationFacilitating exchange of information and of software applicationsSharing expertise and strategies

Practically, both partners will begin their cooperation with nine projects in

four fields:

Education and learning:

1. Development of a syllabus for teacher training on integrating ICT intoteaching

2. Building of UNESCO Knowledge Communities (web communities of prac-tice)

3. Exploration of how Microsofts Innovative Teachers Network (ITN)could further UNESCOs educational aims

4. Cooperation in Microsofts Partners in Learning programme throughfour distinct mechanisms

Community access and development:

1. Establishment of a North African resource facility to support youthinformation and ICT centres

2. Exploration of the potential cooperative development of projects underMicrosofts Unlimited Potential programme

3. Cooperation with Microsoft and the Canadian InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC) in their Global Support Network

Access and learning:

1. Project on computer refurbishment and Microsofts Digital PipelinePilot Project



7/23


Access and cultural diversity

1. Three joint initiatives on local language development

The first two fields (seven projects) are clearly the most important. Apartfrom these initial cooperative projects, the agreement states that the partnerswill collaborate to identify further possible areas and projects for cooperation(UNESCO and Microsoft, 2004).

We have situated this partnership as regards UNESCO within the broaderUN context, but Microsofts motives also deserve critical scrutiny. Evidently,there is the promotion of the public image of the company, which in the pre-

amble of the cooperation agreement is framed as an international corporatecitizen of conscience. Furthermore, Microsoft is described as a companywhose mission is to enable people and businesses throughout the world torealize their full potential through the use of innovative information technol-ogy. Considering that Microsoft is also a business whose mission is ulti-mately profit-making (a commitment to its shareholders), it is at leastremarkable that the partnership coincides with the growing challenges posedto the worlds largest software providers operating system Windows byLinux and other open source alternatives (Cisler, 2003) challenges illus-trated, for example, by an increasing tendency on the part of the public sec-tor to switch to Linux-based software (AP, 2004; Marson, 2006), for exampleat the municipal level in Munich and Paris, and in some areas of central gov-ernment in China, Japan, South Korea and Brazil. Microsoft allegedly backsa lobbying organization called Software Choice, which tries to persuade leg-islators to avoid the choice for the use of open source products only. This rec-ommendation and other principles Software Choice propagates could ineffect lock out the use of open source and free software in public institutions(Cisler, 2003; Perens, 2002). And, although Microsoft recently adopted aseemingly more open-source-tolerant stance on some issues (LaMonica,2006), analysts expect that the next major wave of M&A (mergers and acqui-sitions) activity will involve software giants loading up on open source soft-ware makers, which presumably will lead to shutting down the technologymodel rather than embracing it (Higginbotham, 2006).

It is not far fetched then, to examine the MicrosoftUNESCO cooperationin the light of Microsofts strategies to battle the open source model for soft-ware development and support (Cisler, 2003; LaMonica, 2006). Indeed, weconsider Microsofts cooperation with UNESCO to be only one of manymechanisms the software giant deploys to secure its grip on the software mar-

ket. Under the guise of corporate social responsibility (CSR) Microsoftdevelops a great many activities which, at different levels, tie people, busi-nesses and countries to its software.

To paint a complete picture it must be recognized that UNESCOs contin-ued support for the diversity of software models is not a hollow phrase. Inaddition to its FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) portal, which acts as



8/23


a gateway to resources related to the FOSS movement, the organization alsooffers continuously updated and free-of-charge software tools for the pro-

cessing of information (like CDS/ISIS, Greenstone and IDAMS) and pro-claimed a Software Freedom Day (10 September). This contradiction inpartnering with Microsoft while supporting the FOSS movement corroboratesthe vision that international organizations should not be regarded as mono-lithic entities with invariably clear-cut positions.

ICT4D: conceptual linchpin

To explore the conceptual framework of the cooperation it is revealing to take

a closer look at Microsofts corporate citizenship programmes, an overview ofwhich is also provided in the appendix to the MicrosoftUNESCO Agreement.

Microsofts Global Citizenship Initiative is fuelled by the perception that a suc-cessful global corporation has the responsibility to use its resources and influenceto make a positive impact on the world and its people (Microsoft, 2005a). A corepillar of this CSR programme consists of advancing the knowledge economy.This objective is pursued mainly through the corporations flagship digital inclu-sionprogrammes, Partners in Learning (PiL) and Unlimited Potential (UP), pro-grammes through which UNESCO cooperates with Microsoft. Digital inclusion

is defined as increasing the availability and accessibility of software, promotingdigital literacy and creating economic opportunity through Microsoft productsand services (Microsoft, 2005b). The chain of reasoning is that, through the pro-vision of technology access and training to all types of learners, no matter wherethey happen to be on the continuum of ICT skills [] these digital inclusion pro-grams lay the groundwork for increased economic opportunity and socialimprovements (Microsoft, 2006a). This is clearly a statement in support of theso-called ICT4D, or Information and Communication Technology forDevelopment, paradigm which very roughly stated presupposes that access to

and availability of ICT will lead to development.We would characterize this development paradigm, which is prominentlypresent at the international level, especially and even more forcefully sincethe WSIS, as follows. First, the digital divide is seen as a major unequaliz-ing force in the world economy today (Wade, 2002: 460). This not onlyobscures the fact that the digital divide may more accurately be just a reflec-tion of the socio-economic or development divide between developed anddeveloping countries (Nulens, 2003: 2646). It also suggests that when thedeveloping world finally is adequately and sufficiently connected, it willbecome fully integrated into the global economy and hence become an equalpartner of the rich countries. This disguises the fact that LDCs (Least DevelopedCountries) are already more than fully integrated into the global market-place through WTO agreements, albeit on unfavourable terms (Cline-Cole andPowell, 2004: 7; Yau, 2004: 12). ICT is seen as inevitably leading to economic



9/23


development (Nulens, 2003: 264), institutional and infrastructural obstaclesare usually not taken into account. The fact that there is scarcely any evidence

of the benefits of investments in ICT for development as compared to non-ICT investments like education or health is largely ignored. And when thereis evidence of high failure rates in ICT projects, this is thought to reveal theneed for more training, or the need to adapt technology to specific culturalcontexts, while the necessity of investment in ICT is usually not questioned(Wade, 2002: 460).

Shade calls the mere equation of technology with development, which canbe found in the rhetoric surrounding the G8s Digital Opportunity Task Force(DOT Force), an initiative to bridge the digital divide, Modernization 2.0(2003: 11415). Indeed, we can hear the post-Second World War moderniza-tion paradigm resonating through the broader ICT4D discourse. Escobar typ-ifies the Western development conception of the time: technology, which wasregarded as neutral and entirely beneficial, would bring the underdevelopedareas material progress, innovation and results. The transfer of technologybecame an important element in the elaboration of development projects(1995a: 36). In fact, this renewed modernization thinking is presented evenmore forcefully than it used to be, as it promises that ICTs will open up theopportunity for LDCs to leapfrog several stages of development (Nulens,2003: 263). The ignorance of critiques of prior modernization/development

theories within the bulk of ICT4D thinking is criticized by Lovink and Zehle,who accuse the elite of a few influential non-governmental organization(NGO) networks like APC, OneWorld or Panos, and a small number of statesand influential donor organizations of uncritically reproducing the terms ofthe ICT4D discourse. By doing so these actors are contributing to the hege-mony of an a-historical technological determinism. This leads the authors toquestion if development scepticism and the proliferation of alternative visionsit has spawned have quite simply been forgotten:

Or have they been actively muted to disconnect current struggles in the area ofcommunication and information from this history, adding legitimacy to new strate-gies of pre-emptive development that are based on an ever-closer alliancebetween the politics of aid, development and security? (Lovink and Zehle, 2005: 6)

From a post-development perspective, one could state that this a-historicalICT4D discourse once more proves that development thinking remains igno-rant of the mistakes and ills of the past in order to sustain itself in the presentday and into the future (Crush, 1995: 9, 16). The international efforts to bridge,narrow or reduce the digital divide have thus become a new moral authority,which legitimates intervention in the affairs of places which are deemed to be onthe wrong side of the divide (Cline-Cole and Powell, 2004: 6). We surely couldadd ICT4D to Escobars enumeration of attempts to salvage developmentthrough fashionable notions such as sustainable development, grassroots



10/23


development, women and development, market-friendly development(1995b: 215).

The fact that the UNESCOMicrosoft Agreement is taking place within thecontext of the WSIS which can be seen as paying tribute to this re-editing ofthe modernization paradigm (Moll and Shade, 2004) and the fact that theagreement explicitly mentions the exchange and promotion of best practice,expertise and strategies on ICT4D programmes as areas of cooperation betweenthe partners, does not mean, however, that UNESCO uncritically embraceshard-line technodeterministic ICT4D discourse and practice. Besides, it is cer-tainly not the case that Microsoft and UNESCO have entirely compatible viewsconcerning the use of ICT for development. UNESCO, for example, does notshare Microsofts narrow focus on the knowledge economy, as the organizationclaims to be fully aware of the risks of exclusion when knowledge societies arereduced to the promotion of a knowledge economy or information society(UNESCO, 2005a: 26). Indeed, with the very concept of knowledge societiesUNESCO seeks to overcome the narrow technological focus of the concept ofthe information society by stressing broader social, ethical and politicaldimensions. The plural form designates the encompassing of cultural and lin-guistic diversity, and the acknowledgement that the information and communi-cation revolution does not need to result in one specific form of society (2005a:17). But UNESCOs position regarding ICT4D is ambivalent. On the one hand

the organization asserts that technology and connectivity are crucial but shouldnot be thought of as ends in themselves (2005a: 27). On the other hand it is stillupheld that the diffusion of information and communication technologiesinevitably, and more than ever, creates new opportunities for development(2005a: 18). The ICT-based promise of development can only be achieved,however, through a combination of freedom of expression, knowledge, demo-cratic principles and the concept of justice, in other words through an ethicalapproach (2005a: 29, 26).

Structural political economic inequalities off UNESCOs radar

The trust in an ethical approach to the information society/knowledgesocieties is also evident in UNESCOs labelling of private sector partner-ships with the ICT industry as joint ventures between an ethically-basedapproach and high-level technical know-how (UNESCO, n.d.g). This sug-gests that such an approach to technology is enough to manage its deploy-ment. In our opinion, however, the operation of technology is determined by

economic, political, institutional and social factors, and this context has tobe taken into account. Moreover, UNESCOs ethical vision can be criticizedfor turning a blind eye to structural political economic inequalities in theICT domain.



11/23


It can be argued that a new form of international (digital) dependence hasarisen, which would call for a new form of the 1970s dependency theory. This

development paradigm blamed the capitalist world system for producing under-development. Concerning media and communication its proponents investi-gated imbalances in ownership, production and distribution, and the functioningof what was called media and cultural imperialism. With Shades (2003)Modernization 2.0 in mind, we could consider introducing Dependency 2.0 too.Wade discerns several ways in which developing country users are being tiedmore tightly into hardware and software escalation with ramifications difficultto escape (2002: 452). The ICT companies, which are still overwhelminglybased in the industrialized countries (Cisler, 2005: 1523), are engaged in asoftwarehardware arms race: software and hardware are almost dialecticallybeing developed to use more memory and speed, which makes older softwareand hardware outmoded very quickly. To be able to communicate withcustomers, suppliers and donors in the OECD (Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development) countries, developing countries firms andgovernments are forced to use scarce foreign exchange in order to replace theirold technological devices (Wade, 2002: 452). Morales-Gomez and Melessewarn of the very real possibility that these investments can, in effect, not onlydraw essential capital away from being allocated to basic needs, but can alsoresult in increasing the external debt or transforming developing countries into

new profitable markets for transnational corporations, with benefits on the locallevel only flowing to the elites (1998: 6).

It is clear that, from this point of view, one can question the effectiveness in thelong run of the flourishing computer refurbishment initiatives (like MicrosoftsDigital Pipeline Initiative, linked to its Microsoft Authorized Refurbishers pro-gramme). In UNESCOs view these projects are seen as a mechanism of redistri-bution of equipment, because, the acknowledged inequality in high-speed internetconnections notwithstanding, it is better to have a computer, even an old and lessefficient one, than no computer at all (2005a: 34). Moreover:

[] [s]uch a redistribution arrangement, based on voluntary decisions by individ-uals, companies, organizations and governments in the industrialized countries,and on a principle of sharing, would attest to a spirit ofdigital solidarity that couldhelp to mitigate the economic inequalities that foster the digital divide. (UNESCO,2005a: 34)

This is another example of UNESCOs ethical approach that is worth remark-ing on. First, because even if those initiatives amount to a spirit of digital sol-idarity (taking into account that the maintenance cost for older hardware is

often higher than the cost of new hardware in the industrialized countries: whatoptions are there to get rid of the redundant Western computer arsenal?),UNESCO is assuming that charitable action could solve structural economicinequalities (which it never even begins to explore in the first place). Second,



12/23


this conception skips the fact that other costs for training, integration and sup-port can exceed the cost of hardware and software (Cisler, 2003). And this

brings us to the matter of the sustainability of projects. Cisler points to the factthat donor/lender agencies expect that community or project leaders who usu-ally have never written a business plan will be creative enough to raise funds orwill acquire skills to find new investors for support once the seed money is usedup, which in reality succeeds only exceptionally (2005: 155; Yau, 2004: 23).

Another form of digital dependence that remains unaddressed byUNESCO is in the domain of the setting of ICT standards and rules. Thisdomain is not part of UNESCOs constitutional mandate, but the power rela-tions in this field clearly influence the situation concerning ICT worldwidewith which UNESCO is concerned. Developing countries lack meaningfulformal representation and informal influence in major standard-setting bod-ies, like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), this situationbeing even worse in the private consortia-only dominated arenas which havesprung up in recent years (Commonwealth Telecommunications Organizationand Panos London, 2002: 34). And there is a lot at stake in the settling ofICT regimes and standards. It is no secret that during the negotiations severaltactics are used, like slowing down the process until a company or countrysown approach is the de facto standard. Then:

ICT standard-setting bodies are only rarely neutral coordinating bodies, becauseICT standards are only rarely purely public goods.[] This is why firms, industryassociations and states are willing to meet the substantial expenses of their repre-sentatives on the legions of standard-making bodies.[] They are willing to paybecause they see privatizable gains at stake. (Wade, 2002: 4589)

The lack of influence of developing countries at the standard-setting level notonly means that they cannot meaningfully participate in the process of stan-dard-setting itself, it also results in a situation in which they become moreintegrated into the existing international ICT system. The big Western ICT

firms benefit disproportionately from this integration.A case in point is the Western governments and World Bank initiated call

for good governance as a condition for aid. The concept has found its wayinto the broader UN family discourse, with former UN Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan designating it as perhaps the single most important factor ineradicating poverty and promoting development(quoted in UNESCO, n.d.b).Good governance in aid agreements is operationalized as being transparent,accountable and more effective. This can be achieved through the creation ofunified ICT infrastructures in the public sector (e-governance). The contracts

for the provision of those obviously go to Western ICT firms. As such, devel-oping country governments introduce ICTs in the context of e-governancebecause that is a lever for aid (Cline-Cole and Powell, 2004: 8). In theprocess, they are tying themselves to the standards of the ICT firms chosenby their donors. This, moreover, has the perverse effect that the allocation of



13/23


parts of their budget to Western hardware, software and services actually canbe described as a tax on aid budgets, whereby in the African context, as

argued by Cline-Cole and Powell, the North is to be paid to smooth Africasinsertion into a globalized world order, from which the North will then profit(2004: 67).

UNESCO also has its e-governance capacity-building projects. Here too,ICT is valued as more than a tool as E-governance involves new styles ofleadership, new ways of debating and deciding policy and investment, newways of accessing education, new ways of listening to citizens and new waysof organising and delivering information and services (UNESCO, n.d.c). Theprojects are focused on local decision-makers in Africa, Latin America andthe Caribbean. The municipal level is chosen because it is at the local levelthat the impact of ICTs on the relationship between governments and citizensis expected to be most effective (UNESCO, n.d.b). Again, some reservationscome to mind. UNESCO promotes e-governance to encourage citizen partic-ipation in the decision-making process. But it is a well known fact that gov-ernments, let alone local governments, in LDCs cannot autonomously decidewhat public service, education or health policy they want, tied as they are tothe World Banks and IMFs (International Monetary Fund) PovertyReduction and Growth Facilities (PRGF), the successors of the EnhancedStructural Adjustment Facilities (ESAF), notorious for their harsh effects on

the population of LDCs (Mestrum, 2005: 52, 60). This means that govern-ments are accountable to the World Bank and IMF rather than to their ownconstituencies. It seems extremely unlikely, then, that citizens of LDCs willbe able to participate in the decision-making process through e-governancefacilities (or indeed by any other means).

It is obvious that ICT suppliers through e-governance projects are reachingfor new markets. It is a strategy that Microsoft is also pursuing through theorganization of its various, regional Government Leaders Forums (GLF)where the development of information technology in the public sector is pro-

moted. Examples of initiatives taking place in this e-governance solutionscontext are those between Microsoft and the OAS (Organization of AmericanStates) and between Microsoft and the APEC (Asia Pacific EconomicCooperation) group. Both joint efforts were accompanied by considerabledonations by Microsoft (US $594,638 and US $500,000 respectively)(Microsoft, 2005c; Microsoft, 2005d). The corporation thinks this will lead tosignificantly enhanced services for citizens and will be useful as a powerfultool for social and economic development. Even more is promised, as accord-ing to Enrique Barkey of Hewlett Packard (HP), a joint MicrosoftHP initia-

tive to achieve greater interoperability will transform the way governmentsinteract with their citizens and citizens with their governments (Microsoft,2005c). This is clearly another example of how technology in itself is toutedas bringing about profound societal, economic or political changes. But, asHamelink correctly argues, ICTs by themselves will not lead to changing



14/23


institutional settings or more democratic social development as long as thereare no changes in political decision-making processes (1997: 32).

ICT and education

Yet another market to be seized by ICT companies in developing countries (aswell as in the industrialized countries) is that of education and training. Wecan discern activities on three levels in this domain, namely ICT in education,ICT education and ICT for community purposes.

The first, ICT in education, is of special importance in the context of theagreement between UNESCO and Microsoft, which involves a great deal ofcooperation in the field of education and learning, mainly through the elabo-ration of a syllabus for teacher training on the integration of ICT into teach-ing and through UNESCOs cooperation in Microsofts Innovative TeachersNetwork and Partners in Learning initiatives. The Innovative TeachersNetwork is a web-based platform that provides teachers with content, toolsand services. The aim is to enable them to efficiently perform their dailyclassroom tasks, collaborate and communicate with peers, students and par-ents in a community environment, and enhance their professional skills bylearning and sharing best practices (UNESCO and Microsoft, 2004). Partners

in Learning aims to increase access to and build capacity for the use of ICTsby educators and students through grants for skills training, software grantsand licenses at lower-than-usual prices, the focus being on primary and sec-ondary schools (Microsoft, 2005b). UNESCO also collaborates with Intel, theworlds largest chip-making corporation, to develop a syllabus to improve theuse of ICT in classrooms (UNESCO, 2004d).

UNESCO does not simply state that the use and availability of ICT per sewill achieve more or better education, but the organizations position isambivalent again. On the one hand the organization stresses the fact that ICTs

are only part of a variety of technologies that can be used in education andmust be considered as tools which have to be adapted to educational goals.Moreover, it is recognized that many ethical and legal issues intervene in theuse of ICTs in education (UNESCO, n.d.h). On the other hand it is claimedthat ICTs, through delivery of education and training of teachers, can con-tribute to achieving worldwide universal education (UNESCO, 2005c).

The interests of major ICT corporations in the educational market need tobe recognized, though. Technology companies have been promoting theirproducts in schools for a long time, an early example being the Keystone

View Company, which, in the first decades of the twentieth century, con-vinced American schools that integrating its technology (stereographicimages which could be viewed with hand-held devices and projectors) wouldgreatly improve learning. Since those days various companies have repeatedthis promise of technology improving learning. Through various mechanisms



15/23


(in-kind donations, grants, awards, special funds, reduced pricing), ICT com-panies today are still seeking to increase their market share, promote brand

loyalty, influence public opinion or even create dependence on a product line(Cisler, 2003).Besides these motives of the industry, it is also useful to question the all too

often implicitly assumed effectiveness of the use of ICTs in education. Theexciting language which Microsoft, Intel and their like use to promote theireducation programmes, and which is found in UNESCOs vision on ICTs andeducation too, totally ignores the failed modernization programmes concern-ing media and education of the past (Lindo-Fuentes, 2005). Larry Cuban hasdone extensive research on the topic of ICT in education in the United States,where the reasoning of policy-making in educational technology can be sum-marized as follows. Increased availability of new technologies in the class-room will lead to increased use, which will lead to efficient teaching andbetter learning. This in turn will lead to able graduates equipped with the mostup-to-date skills to compete in the workplace (2001: 18). Cuban concludesthat the use of ICT in the classroom has not proven to have contributed tocomputer literacy and competitiveness in the workplace, and has not led toenhanced efficiency in learning and teaching in the vast majority of theAmerican classrooms (2001: 178). He then goes on to question the UnitedStates 1990s ICT in education multibillion-dollar investment, because, by

allocating substantial funds for sustaining technology in a given district,administrators often run out of resources to meet other pressing needs (2001:7, 193). This concern obviously applies more broadly to ICT4D investmentsin developing countries too. As regards education in developing countries, wealso must mention the paradoxical situation whereby the IMF and WorldBank on the one hand are pursuing reform policies which oblige states to cutin their public spending, which seriously affects education, while on the otherhand promoting ICT4D projects which cost a lot of money. Arguably, educa-tion is more important to development than digital access (Nederveen

Pieterse, 2005: 16).Of course, these huge ICT investments in education in the United States

did not come out of the blue. They can be traced back to the 1970s eco-nomic crisis and the US fear of being challenged in the global economy.Cuban (2001: 4, 7) cites the important 1983 Nation at Risk report by theNational Commission on Excellence in Education. To achieve the prepara-tion of high-performing graduates for the fast-changing workplace of theinformation age and to keep on the slim competitive edge the US riskedlosing in the world market, more advanced technology in the classroom was

seen to be of the utmost importance. Of course this discourse coincidedwith that of the ICT industries. And it still does today, as witnessed inMicrosofts recent call to the US government to invest much more in ICTaccess and training and the corporations cooperation project with theDepartment of Labor because:



16/23


[] [i]ts no secret that the United States is falling behind in efforts to equip itsworkers with the basic technology and computing skills necessary for them to com-pete in the global economy [] as the workplace moves from a manufacturing to

information based economy. (Microsoft, 2006b; see also Microsoft, 2006c)

The huge investments in ICT in the education environment which occurred in theUnited States in the 1990s were not driven by business interests only. Since the1980s a powerful ad hoc coalition came into being which was and is comprisedof groups (public officials, corporate executives, policy-makers, parents groups)which, with different objectives though united through some common goals,came to push this ICT drive (Cuban, 2001: 1215). This can also be observedregarding the ICT4D movement, which gained momentum because of the vari-

ous interests of all stakeholders involved converging on the same paradigm:corporations, but also governments, intergovernmental and development organ-izations, civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations.

Besides this promotion of ICT in education, there is also the issue of ICTeducation as such. In this domain, UNESCO is working with Cisco Systems,the worlds biggest network equipment provider. Together these partnersfounded the Regional Academy for Advanced Network Administration andDesign (RAANAD), in Kiev, Ukraine in 2001 and the Regional Academy forOnline Network Governance and System Applications (RAONGSA) in Baku,

Azerbaijan in 2002. Both are promoted as model training hubs, servicing for[sic] Eastern Europe and Central Asia in network capacity building(UNESCO,n.d.a). Since its launch, RAONGSA has been growing and integrating severalcentre facilities, such as Cisco Regional Networking Academy and MicrosoftOffice Specialist Authorized Testing Centre. The academy has produced a num-ber of Cisco Certified Network Associates (CCNA), certified professionals whocan select, connect, configure and troubleshoot the various Cisco networkingdevices. The Cisco certifications are valued highly because they are a precon-dition for opening up quality network services (UNESCO, 2004a).

McLaughlin, in an analysis of similar Cisco/UN initiatives like the CiscoSystems Gender Initiative and the Least Developed Countries Initiative, crit-icizes the fact that there have been few efforts to monitor or assess these coop-erative efforts (2005: 557). She warns of the extraordinary limited approachthese initiatives have, as, under the banner of development aid, the provisionof ICT education in fact amounts to the mere creation of a workforce whichis integrated into the functioning of the global economy. This in fact may beindicative of another NorthSouth divide, with the global North taking careof the lions share of research and development while the global South pro-

vides low- and semi-skilled labourers (McLaughlin, 2005: 59), and witharrangements like the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights) ensuring this division of labour (Yau, 2004: 18, 21). Indeed, we canask what empowerment is envisioned when UNESCO promotes the estab-lishment of a UNESCO/Cisco local Academy in South Africa which provides



17/23


specialised IT training thus considerably empowering youth when facing thenew requirements of the labour market (UNESCO, 2002). It seems to be the

case that empowerment is understood extremely restrictively here. Poor peo-ple in disadvantaged regions should be happy because ICTs are offering themjob opportunities. The fact that most teleworkers, predominantly women, arepaid very low wages, working long hours in sweatshop conditions (DeAlcantera, quoted in Yau, 2004: 21; Parayil, 2005: 49) is ignored. What ismore, transnational corporations which offshore ICT jobs and services alsooften leave quickly for other places which offer more favourable investmentconditions, leaving local stakeholders at a loss as to whether or not scarcepublic subsidies should even be used to attract and retain industries likely tomove on anyway (Lovink and Zehle, 2005: 5). So the job opportunitiesoffered by ICT certainly deserve a more critical examination.

The third approach we classify within the domain of ICT and educationrefers more broadly to ICT training for communities. On this level too, thefocus is mainly on the economic opportunities ICT can bring. The descriptionof the purpose of the UNESCO/Microsoft community technology centre inTunisia as helping youth to participate in the knowledge economy (UNESCO,2005b) brings to mind the remarks on the risk of the creation of a semi-skilledworkforce in developing countries which comes in handy for transnationalcorporations. In addition, the reasoning behind the information literacy con-

cept which underlies, for example, the UNESCO/Microsoft community tech-nology learning centre in Lebanon (UNESCO, 2006) is not unproblematic.Information literacy is supposed to lead to empowerment (again), because itenhances the pursuit of knowledge by equipping individuals with the skillsand abilities for critical reception, assessment and use of information in theirprofessional and personal lives (UNESCO, n.d.d). This view of informationtechnologies as a means of transmitting rather than creating information issymptomatic of a modernization approach to communications and develop-ment. This approach conceives people as passive retrievers of existing infor-

mation only, and in the process usually leaves no room for community-building or other transformative activities (Wilkins and Waters, 2000: 57, 59).Strover et al. moreover have argued that poor and minority populations werenot reached and power structures tended to be largely replicated in commu-nity ICT projects in the United States with a main focus on improving access(2005: 28).

Besides community technology centres, UNESCO also funds CommunityMultimedia Centres (CMC), which combine community radio with telecen-tre facilities. These in fact do promote local content production. Yet, it is still

upheld that the aim is to reach a critical mass that enables ICT to changewhole societies at the grass roots (UNESCO, 2004c: 231). Whats more, thecombination of the view that information, communication and knowledgebecome the basic tools of the poor in improving their own lives in the caseof CMCs (UNESCO, 2004c: 231) with the vision that everyone should have



18/23


the necessary skills to benefit fully from the Information Society (UNESCO,2005c) may have alarming consequences. The inference is that if the poor in

developing countries are offered the opportunities for lifting themselves outof poverty and they do not succeed, they are themselves to blame. This ideaof a level playing field, which seemingly is about giving people in develop-ing countries equal opportunities, ignores developing countries conditions inthe global economy. Even if poor people can get ICT training or know howto search the web for relevant information, it remains extremely unlikely thatthe national economy will be changed. Similarly, UNESCOs ICT approachesfor women can be charged with perpetuating inequalities, as they are focusedmainly on training and women can be trained until they are blue in their facesbut this would change womens status very little because gender inequality isinherently historical and structural (Lee, 2004: 548).

Conclusion

In answering the question of why UNESCO is ignoring structural inequalitiesin the global economy, attention must first be paid to the huge commercialinterests of the ICT corporations (Wade, 2002: 463) and to the fact that ICTcorporations have an essential function in the global trade regime by provid-

ing the structures for market transactions (Hamelink, 1999: 21). Second, onehas to take into account the organizations chequered past regarding the ques-tioning of communication, information and media imbalances. In the 1970sthe famous NWICO (New World Information and Communication Order)debate caused major upheaval within the organization. It paralleled the Non-Aligned Movements call for a NIEO (New International Economic Order),denounced imbalances in ownership, production and distribution of commu-nication and media, and advocated a more balanced flow of information. TheNWICO call caused a severe division between the Third World and the

Western world and eventually led to the creation of the InternationalCommission for the Study of Communication Problems (MacBrideCommission), which produced the Many Voices One World report but didnot manage to find a consensus. Although UNESCO never meant to curbpress freedom, North American private media and communication industrylobbies fuelled a vehement attack on the organization, accusing it of support-ing government censorship and obstructing the free flow of information. Thiswas also the United States government stance and culminated in the with-drawal of the United States from UNESCO in 1984, followed by that of the

United Kingdom and Singapore in 1985, and leading to a major financial cri-sis and the diminished importance of the organization. In 1989 UNESCOsNew Communication Strategy reinstated the free flow of information doc-trine, an action described as a return to its constitutional mandate. It is not sur-prising, then, that UNESCO does not engage in critically questioning serious



19/23


imbalances concerning ICTs, since in the past this has almost meant the endof the organization. The narrow constitutional approach adopted as a solution

to those controversies is pursued in the organizations present-day ethical con-ception of the information society/knowledge societies and in its partnershipswith ICT corporations. Also, as compared to the 1970s NWICO upheavalwhich originated from the Non-Aligned Movement, today there is scarcelyany resistance to what we have called digital dependence. Instead, most stake-holders are united through efforts which are framed within a pervasive ICT4Ddiscourse. And, third, as has been said, this UNESCO policy has to be situatedin a broader shift of the United Nations systems towards the neoliberal hege-monic project.

To conclude on a more positive note, it must be stressed that UNESCO alsosupports community media initiatives with a more participatory focus.Considering that the digital divide focus downplays the fact that there are stillhuge inequities concerning the old media, which are more important to over-come from a development perspective (Raboy and Landry, 2004: 11;Nederveen Pieterse, 2005: 23), these community media initiatives have to beencouraged. But then again a simple comparison of budgets puts our feet backon the ground. Whereas Microsoft, since the launching of Unlimited Potentialin 2003, has spent a total of US $152 million in grants (Microsoft, 2006d),UNESCOs International Programme for the Development of Communication

(IPDC) due to lack of funding by member states, which arguably has led tothe pragmatic acceptance of corporate funds described above has since 1981only been able to spend a meagre US $90 million (UNESCO, n.d.i).

References

AP (2004) Microsoft-UNESCO Deal for Computer Literacy to Provide TechnologyTraining in Developing Countries, 17 November, URL (consulted February 2006):

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6510866/Bull, B., M. Bs and D. McNeill (2004) Private Sector Influence in the Multilateral System:A Changing Structure of World Governance?, Global Governance 10(4): 48198.

Cisler, S. (2003) Product Placements in Learning Environments: From Keystone-Mast to Microsoft, URL (consulted February 2006): http://www.eduaction.net/productplacement.html

Cisler, S. (2005) Whats the Matter with ICTs? pp. 14658 in G. Lovink andS. Zehle (eds) Incommunicado Reader: Information Technology for EverybodyElse. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.

Cline-Cole, R. and M. Powell (2004) ICTs, Virtual Colonisation and PoliticalEconomy,Review of African Political Economy 99: 59.

Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation and Panos London (2002)LouderVoices: Strengthening Developing Country Participation in International ICTDecision-making. London: Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation andPanos London.

Crush, J. (1995) Imagining Development, pp.123 in J. Crush (ed.) Power ofDevelopment. London: Routledge.



20/23


Cuban, L. (2001) Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Escobar, A. (1995a) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of theThird World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Escobar,A. (1995b) Imagining a Post-development Era, pp. 21127 in J. Crush (ed.)Power of Development. London: Routledge.

Global Policy Forum (2005) Global Compact Governance Framework, URL (con-sulted March 2006): http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/indxbiz.htm

Hamelink, C.J. (1997) New Information and Communication Technologies, SocialDevelopment and Cultural Change. UNRISD Discussion Paper 86. Geneva:United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Hamelink, C.J. (1999) ICTs and Social Development: The Global Policy Context.UNRISD Discussion Paper 116. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute forSocial Development.

Higginbotham, S. (2006) Open Source Challenges Acquirers, The Deal.com1 March, URL (consulted March 2006): http://www.thedeal.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=PENews&c=TDDArticle&cid=1140817052238

LaMonica, M. (2006) Is Microsoft Playing Well with Others?, CNet News.com 7April, URL (consulted April 2006): http://news.com.com/Is+Microsoft+play-ing+well+with+others/2100-7344_3-6058667.html

Lee, M. (2004) UNESCOs Conceptualization of Women and Telecommunications19702000, Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies 66(6):53352.

Lindo-Fuentes, H. (2005) Educational Television in El Salvador: UNESCO andModernization Theory in Action, paper presented at the symposium 60 Years of

UNESCO, 17 November, Paris.Lovink, G. and S. Zehle (2005) Incommunicado Glossary, pp. 311 in G. Lovinkand S. Zehle (eds)Incommunicado Reader: Information Technology for EverybodyElse. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.

Marson, I. (2006, April 12) The Business of Linux in China, CNet News.com12 April, URL (consulted April 2006): http://news.com.com/ The+ business+of+Linux +in+China+-+page+3/2008-7344_3-6060122-3.html?tag=st.num

Mattelart, A. (2003) The Information Society: An Introduction. London: Sage.McLaughlin, L. (2005) Cisco Systems, the United Nations, and the Corporatisation

of Development, pp. 5063 in G. Lovink and S. Zehle (eds.) IncommunicadoReader. Information Technology for everybody else. Amsterdam: Institute of

Network Cultures.McLaughlin, L. (2006) The Gendered Ties That Bind the New Global Governanceto the New Information Economy Abstract, URL (consulted February 2006):http://www.cccs.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=42734&pid=4273

Mestrum, F. (2005) De rattenvanger van Hameln. De Wereldbank, armoede enontwikkeling. Berchem: EPO.

Microsoft (2005a) Global Citizenship at Microsoft, URL (consulted March 2006):http://www.microsoft.com/citizenship/default.mspx

Microsoft (2005b) Partners in Learning, 17 October, URL (consulted March 2006):http://www.microsoft.com/citizenship/knowledge/partners_inlearning.mspx

Microsoft (2005c) Bill Gates Announces Expanded Efforts for Public and Private

Sector Collaboration on Government Services and Digital Inclusion Initiatives,27 April, URL (consulted March 2006): http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/ 2005/apr05/04-27PublicPrivateCollaborationPR.mspx

Microsoft (2005d) Microsoft Government Leaders Forum Builds PublicPrivatePartnerships, Economic Opportunity, 6 December, URL (consulted March 2006):



21/23


h t t p : / / w w w . m i c r o s o f t . c o m / p r e s s p a s s / p r e s s / 2 0 0 5 / d e c 0 5 / 1 2 -05GLFOverviewPR.mspx

Microsoft (2006a) Knowledge Economy, URL (consulted March 2006):

http://www.microsoft.com/citizenship/knowledge/default.mspxMicrosoft (2006b) Microsoft Aims to Help Make U.S. Workforce More

Competitive, 27 February, URL (consulted March 2006): http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/feb06/02-27Workforce.mspx

Microsoft (2006c) Microsoft, Department of Labor Team Up to Train TechnologyWorkers, 28 February, URL (consulted March 2006): http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/feb06/02-28MSDOLPR.mspx

Microsoft (2006d) Helping People Realize Their Potential, One Partnership at aTime, 1 February, URL (consulted March 2006): http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/feb06/02-01PolandUP.mspx

Microsoft and UNDP (2004) Transcript, Microsoft and UNDP Press Conference,

23 January, URL (consulted March 2006): http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/ billg/speeches/2004/01-23undp.aspx

Moll, M. and L.R. Shade (2004) Vision Impossible? The World Summit on theInformation Society, URL (consulted March 2006): http://www3.fis.utoronto.ca/iprp/cracin/publications/pdfs/final/convergence_vision_impossible.pdf

Morales-Gomez, D. and M. Melesse (1998) Utilising Information and CommunicationTechnologies for Development: The Social Dimensions,Information Technology forDevelopment8(1): 313.

Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2005) Digital Capitalism and Development: The UnbearableLightness of ICT4D, pp. 1129 in G. Lovink and S. Zehle (eds)IncommunicadoReader: Information Technology for Everybody Else. Amsterdam: Institute of

Network Cultures.Nulens, G. (2003) The Digital Divide and Development Communication Theory,pp. 255277 in B. Cammaerts, L. Van Audenhove, G. Nulens and C. Pauwels (eds)Beyond the Digital Divide: Reducing Exclusion, Fostering Inclusion. Brussels:VUB Brussels University Press.

Siochr, S. (2004) Will the Real WSIS Please Stand Up? The Historic Encounterof the Information Society and the Communication Society , Gazette: TheInternational Journal for Communication Studies 66(34): 20324.

Paine, E. (2000) The Road to the Global Compact: Corporate Power and the Battleover Global Public Policy at the United Nations, October, URL (consulted30 March 2006): http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/papers/2000/road.htm

Parayil, G. (2005) The Digital Divide and Increasing Returns: Contradictions ofInformational Capitalism, The Information Society 21(1): 4151.Perens, B. (2002) MS Software Choice Scheme a Clever Fraud, The Register

9 August, URL (consulted 30 March 2006): http://www.theregister.co.uk/ 2002/08/09/ms_software_choice_scheme/

Preston, P. (2001)Reshaping Communications. London: Sage.Raboy, M. and N. Landry (2004)La Communication au coeur de la gouvernance glob-

ale. Enjeux et perspectives de la socit civile au Sommet mondial sur la socit delinformation. Montral: Dpartement de communication, Universit de Montral,URL (consulted April 2006): http://www.lrpc.umontreal.ca/smsirapport.pdf

Schiller, D. (1999) Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Shade, L.R. (2003) Here Comes the DOT Force! The New Cavalry for Equity?,Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies 65(2): 10720.

Strover, S. with G. Chapman, J. Waters, J. Gustafson, N. Inagaki and C. Cunningham(2005). Assessing Community Efforts to Reduce the Digital Divide, paper presented



22/23


at the Oxford Internet Institute Seminar on the Digital Divide, 4 March, URL (con-sulted 12 April 2006): http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/collaboration/seminars/20050304_Strover_OII%20paper.pdf

UNESCO (2002) Infoyouth Networks: Recent Achievements, 27 September, URL(consulted March 2006): http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5206&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO (2003) Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity, URL (consulted April2006): http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15720&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO (2004a) UNESCOs Regional Academy Marks Record Success in ICTQuality Training, 1 September, URL (consulted February 2006): http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17068&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SEC-TION=201.html

UNESCO (2004b) UNESCO and Microsoft Sign Cooperation Agreement to Help

Bridge the Digital Divide, 17 November, URL (consulted February 2006):http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17504& URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO (2004c) 32 C/5 Approved Programme and Budget 20042005. Paris:UNESCO.

UNESCO (2004d) Intel, UNESCO to Develop Guidelines for Worldwide TeacherTechnology Training, 9 November, URL (consulted March 2006): http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17482&URL_DO=DO_ TOPIC&URL_SEC-TION=201.html

UNESCO (2005a) Towards Knowledge Societies: UNESCO World Report. Paris:UNESCO.

UNESCO (2005b) New Regional Centre in Tunisia to Help Youth Participate in theKnowledge Economy, 17 November, URL (consulted March 2006): http://por-tal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID =20667 &URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO (2005c) UNESCO Observatory on the Information Society: CapacityBuilding, URL (consulted March 2006): http://www.unesco.org/webworld/por-tal_observatory/pages/Capacity_Building/index.shtml

UNESCO (2006) UNESCO and Microsoft Inaugurate Community TechnologyLearning Centre in Lebanon, 30 March, URL (consulted March 2006): http://por-tal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=21691&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO (n.d.a) UNESCO Partnership with Cisco, URL (consulted March 2006):http://www.portal.unesco.org/ci/wsis/tunis/stand/index.php?Action=showPartnersPrivateDetail&id=1

UNESCO (n.d.b) E-governance Capacity Building, URL (consulted March 2006):http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=2179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO (n.d.c) Defining E-Governance, URL (consulted March 2006): http://por-tal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4404&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SEC-TION=201.html

UNESCO (n.d.d) Information Literacy, URL (consulted March 2006): http://por-tal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15886&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_

SECTION=201.htmlUNESCO (n.d.e) Private Sector Policy, URL (consulted April 2006): http://por-tal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=11897&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SEC-TION=201.html



23/23


UNESCO (n.d.f). Opportunities for Cooperation, URL (consulted April 2006):http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=11508&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO (n.d.g) About the CI Sector: Private Sector Partnerships, URL (consultedApril 2006): http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17587&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO (n.d.h) Education and ICT, URL (consulted March 2006): http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=2929&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC &URL_SEC-TION=201.html

UNESCO (n.d.i) About International Programme for the Development ofCommunication, URL (consulted April 2006): http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=18654&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO and Microsoft (2004) Cooperation Agreement between the United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Microsoft Corporation,

URL (consulted July 2007): http://portal.unesco.org/ci/fr/ev.php-URL_ID=17589&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Van Audenhove, L. and G. Nulens (2003) The International Digital Divide:An Analysis in the Light of the Policy Discourse on the Information Society,pp. 22953 in B. Cammaerts, L. Van Audenhove, G. Nulens and C. Pauwels (eds)Beyond the Digital Divide: Reducing Exclusion, Fostering Inclusion. Brussels:VUB Brussels University Press.

Wade, R.H. (2002) Bridging the Digital Divide: New Route to Development or NewForm of Dependency, Global Governance 8(4): 44366.

Wilkins, J. and J. Waters (2000) Current Discourse on New Technologies inDevelopment Communication,Media Development1: 5760.

Yau, Y.Z. (2004) The New Imperialism and Africa in the Global Electronic Village,Review of African Political Economy 31(99): 1129.

Veva Leye is a research assistant of the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO)and a member of the Working Group Film and Television Studies at theDepartment of Communication Studies, Ghent University, Belgium. She ispreparing a PhD on UNESCOs policies on international communication from1975 until 2005.Address: Department of Communication Studies, Korte Meer7-9-11, 9000 Gent, Belgium. [email: [email protected]]

media culture society 2007 leye 972 93

Documents