USAID’s (United States Agency for International Development) new and first ever digital strategy is an important gauge of the role digital technology has played in development. With the draft released in October 2019 and the imminent release of the strategy proper for 2019-2024, USAID is signalling a change in the way in which technology will be utilized in their programming. By defining a dual focus on internal digitization and strengthening of the country level digital ecosystems, the strategy does a good job of narrowing its objectives. This narrowing comes also from USAID’s overall shift in focus away from aid and onto work that enables developing countries’ self-reliance.
 

The arguments around the use of digital technology in development are not new. However, with the advancement of mobile phones and proliferation of internet connections world-wide, digital technology’s usage has rapidly expanded in developing countries. Within mainstream development thinking the transfer of digital technology into developing countries is generally seen as a positive sign of progress. However, the one-off narratives that define ICT4D (Information and Communications Technologies for [4] Development) success fail to capture the complex intricacies of technology led progress. Furthermore, as digital technology gets increasingly powerful and complex, development work needs responsible and flexible ways of incorporating technology. In the digital strategy document, this focus on using digital technology is presented as continuation of USAID’s overall shift from aid-reliance to self-sustenance. On these overall points, the strategy covers the most important issues and mentions the use of technology in meeting countries in their path of self-reliance. However, the strategic objectives miss a few important considerations on who digital technology inclusion is for.
 

While the strategy draft document includes mostly objective and goal level details, it is possible to recognize some potential operational strategies. The strategic framework outlines two core interrelated goals. The first goal is mostly in relation to its own programmatic design, using digital technology to improve the development and humanitarian outcomes at the implementation level. The second goal is more outward, where USAID sees itself in a unique position to be able to influence and assist the development of digital ecosystems in developing countries by focusing on its openness, inclusiveness and security.

While the report signals general openness of USAID in moving forward digital solutions into development programs, the strategy does nothing to challenge the status quo of technology development and transfer. This is especially surprising considering USAID’s overall mandate in moving away from aid. If the goal is to move countries to self-reliance, then it would make more sense to incorporate local capacity in the design and implementation of digital technology enabled programs. This is particularly important in considering the regional imbalance in technology development. A key strategy here would be implementing via local partners, rather than international institutions. The paradigm of using Western-built technology for Southern use-cases needs to be challenged. Focusing on the capacity development of the local ecosystem would enable local actors to develop appropriate technologies that solve complex local issues rather than having to rely on imported technological solutions funded by aid. This strategy would be aligned with the agency’s focus on moving countries to self-reliance and away from aid dependence.
 

A large point of focus of the strategy is on strengthening, openness and security of digital ecosystems. This focus, however, leaves out important issues around the protection of consumers from negative aspects of ‘disruptive’ technologies. While the document mentions opposing “digital integration in instances when it is clear digital technology and data are becoming unwitting tools of repression” - it misses large issues around more hidden forms of repression that are increasingly prevalent with large privately-owned technology firms targeting developing countries for their digital ‘disruption’. This point is especially important considering the strategy’s mention of focus on partnering with the private sector and alignment with “US aligned international standards”. In the digital strategy, USAID should focus on programs that make it possible for developing countries to manage big tech interest effectively and prioritize human security over technology adaptation.

Recent examples of tech enabled ‘disruptive’ innovations in micro-finance are particularly interesting in understanding the complexity of issues related to use of technology in developing countries. New digital tools that enable Artificial Intelligence credit checks and seamless access to credit via mobile phones are creating situations of high indebtedness among the poorest populations. Companies focused on achieving rapid scale in a competitive marketplace are creating new strategies to target sub-sections of poor populations in developing countries. Furthermore, multiple privately financed companies operating and competing for the same clients creates situations where the safety of the ‘target’ population is further compromised. Facebook’s Libra is another example of the potential of complex impact of high-level innovations. Libra is one of the primary use cases aimed at easing remittance transfer, purposefully targeted at low-income populations. While this technology could potentially be beneficial to its users, larger issues around legitimacy of digital currency, data security and financial protection are more important to consider. On the other hand, developing countries can also be a good starting point for certain innovations. For example, by building a solution that initially fit Rwanda’s unique problems, drone delivery company Zipline was able to prove their use case effectively and secure avenues of growth elsewhere. Managing innovations and R&D (Research and Development) of varying kinds is essential for developing countries in balancing the gains and losses of digital technology.
 

While the strategy holds a lot of promise in the use of digital technology in the implementation of development programs, it lacks a clear enough focus on inclusion, capacity development and protection. With the release of their final digital strategy, I hope that USAID clarifies some of its operative plans to further their strategy in the coming years and use its unique position to assist developing countries in dealing with digital disruptions. Special focus should also be given to upcoming high-level challenges with new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, automation and Blockchain. As the technology’s role in development gets increasing attention, it is important that development research builds new concepts and frameworks to better understand the complexities relating to inclusion, design and disruption that new innovations bring.
 

---

This is part of a series of blogs written by current IDS masters students and PhD Researchers. Look out for other blogs in this series, including: Barricades and democratic tsunami in Barcelona; Muxes, the third gender that challenges heteronormativity; That Night a Forest Flew; Eco-anxiety and the politics of hope: a reflective opportunity to build resilience; About Greta Thunberg and silenced environmental leaders; From alleged offenders to confessed sufferers: Participatory process in action; Women’s struggle in Afghanistan: An Insight from a Human Rights perspectives; Feminist Latin American movements demanding sexual and reproductive health and rights; India’s Progressing Ambitions in Development Finance; The British voting system for disabled voters is broken: How to fix it… plus one other to follow on- Rwanda on a participatory theatre project