| Advanced Search |
Knowledge CategoriesClassifieds |
Average Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (4 ratings submitted)
Mobile Telecommunications and Economic GrowthAuthorLeonard Waverman, Meloria Meschi & Melvyn Fuss
London Business School, Law and Economics Consulting Group (Waverman), University of Toronto (Fuss) October 2005 SummaryIn October 2005, the Annenberg Research Network on International Communication (ARNIC) at the University of Southern California (USA) held a workshop - "Wireless Communication and Development: A Global Perspective" - as part of a multi-disciplinary effort to study the emergence of new communication infrastructures, examine the transformation of government policies and communication patterns, and analyse the social and economic consequences. In this 32-slide presentation, one of 12 at the event, Leonard Waverman, Meloria Meschi, and Melvyn Fuss ask "how important is a good communications system for economic growth?" They outline the economic impact of communications systems by highlighting its contribution to the organisation of business life, organisation of household and community life, and productivity of firms and workers. Communications systems - particularly those that are two-way (telecoms) rather than one-way (broadcasting) - lower transaction costs and widen buyer and supplier networks. Thus, the authors claim that a solid communications network is a key contributor to social overhead capital (SOC) - roads, telephones, electricity grids, etc. - which is, in turn, crucial for economic growth. Despite evidence to support this claim, the development debate "fails to prioritise communications - 'Millennium Development Report' only mentions [it] in passing." Throughout their analysis, the authors cite a number of global and regional communication trends in mobile telephony, such as: The authors cite evaluation challenges in assessing the impact of this growing communication system on economic growth. Specifically, they note that better communications networks seem to lead to higher income - but higher income seems to engender better communications networks. There is, then, a problem of causality. H. Roeller and L. Waverman (in the American Economic Review, Sept. 2001) managed to disentangle these two effects, in the authors' estimation. Roeller and Waverman found that a good communications network widens markets, creates better information flow, lowers transaction costs, and substitutes for costly physical transport (which can be significant in rural Africa; an African trader might spend 20% to 40% of his or her gross income on renting a bicycle for 1 year). Drawing on Roeller and Waverman, the authors engaged in research that found the impact of mobiles around the world to be significant. For instance, doubling mobile penetration from its average level of 8% leads to 10% increase in output. They point, in particular, to the growth potential of mobiles in African countries, noting that South Africa and Morocco have exceptional performance in mobiles rollout and that faster growth is expected here, especially if political stability is maintained. Pointing to business success stories like Celtel and Orascom, they argue that locally run and owned mobile companies can thrive even in the economically poorest of nations, but that a good investment climate, solid rule of law, and less corruption need to be in place. ContactMelvyn Fuss
University of Toronto - Department of Economics Leonard Waverman SourcePosting to the Information Knowledge Management (IKM)-Sharing List dated November 3 2005 (click here for the archives) - forwarded to The Communication Initiative by Dr. Rafael Obregon on November 4 2005; and Workshop page on the ARNIC website. Placed on the Communication Initiative site February 12 2006 Last Updated September 23 2007 How useful did you find the knowledge and contacts on this page to your work? Post your comments (review comments from others below):Top 5 Related Pages |
Special FocusYoung Children and ICTs
Should ICT be used to enhance the development of empathy in young children? If yes, how? If no, why not?
|