Amit Prakash and Rahul De

IIM Bangalore

Presented By:

Ajanta Akhuly

Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences

In this paper we build a case for the importance of the development context in ICT4D projects. Only by broadening our perspective we can see how ‘development’ is interpreted by different people and how technology fits in accordingly.

IT projects are not episodes disconnected from history, organizational and economic circumstances from which they emerge. Therefore, ICT4D projects should try to situate themselves within the development context from which they are derived and of which they become a part.

In the Bhoomi project the desired consequences were not met. The author argues that this happened because the development paradigm that was chosen dismissed a greater proportion of the population.

Development as Economic Growth :Modernization Theory: Developing countries need

to emulate developed countries. Basis is Rostow’s (1984) five stages that lead to economic growth.

Dependency theory (By Prebish): Industrialized countrites in the center and developing countries in the periphery. Dependency theorists prescribed protectionist and import substitution model.

Neoliberal paradigm: “Get the prices right” and let the market forces do their work. Achieved through structural reform, deregulation, liberalization and privatization.

But in the absence of perfect conditions for free market many intended beneficiaries of development programs will not be able to participate in the market and get left out.

Development as Capacity Building: (Amartya Sen)

People are the centre of development. Building capacities and creating societies where

individual potential can be realized. Poverty is “a deprivation of basic capabilities rather

than merely low income”. Highlights the importance of political freedoms,

economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security that will lead to overall freedom.

Schumacher: “Development does not start with goods, it starts with people, their education, organization and discipline.

Therefore, distributional justice and individual capabilities are equally important as aggregative growth.

Land Reforms in India: “Land to the tiller”. To introduce advance technology and increase productivity land reforms was necessary. On 12.5% of the land reforms had taken place. While in Taiwan it was 37%, Japan 33% , South Korea 32%.

Computerization of land records (CLR) scheme: CLR is a part of land reform.

Land records in India were not up to date since decades. Influential and powerful sections of the society used to

manipulate land records. From 1988-89 to 2003-04 GOI has released Rs 300 crore

(US$ 70 million)to be implemented in 582 districts and 2400 talukas.

Bhoomi project of Karnataka is an acclaimed and publicized CLR project which can be replicated elsewhere.

Objective: Explore how different meanings attributed to development influence the choice of technology solutions.

Case study method: Multiple methods of data collection.Secondary data: Govt reports, Bhoomi

website, newspaper reports.Primary data: Structured and Unstructured

interview of 120 land owning and landless farmers, kiosk operators, bureaucrats etc.

Project Features: 20 million land records. Issue an RTC (Record of rights, tenancy and crops).RTC certifies the ownership of land, location,

unique identity number, crops sown, identity of the tiller, loans taken against the land etc.

Ownership of land can be changed by “mutation”.Bhoomi was supposed to replace the manual

methods of issuing the RTC. Village accountants (VA ) used to issue RTC, who were corrupt and harassed farmers.

In the ‘Bhoomi’ system farmers have to travel to sub-district headquarter (taluk=250 vilages, 177 taluks in Karnataka).

Pay Rs 15 as fee, get print out with signature and hologram as verification.

The Design of the Project: The first (1991) and second (1996) attempt

failed as they did not anticipate the size and scope of the project.

Farmers and institutions that use Bhoomi’s services were not consulted.

All manual RTCs were declared illegal. Entire system was designed and implemented

by senior officials of the Revenue Department. District, Taluk and village officials were excluded.

Initially ‘Bhoomi’ was very actively resisted. Govt. officials resisted as it upset their existing ways of working and also because it was a new technology they were not familiar with.

Project Consequences: Bhoomi helped in the sale and transfer of

agricultural land via the automated mutation system. Lesser chances of corrupt officials tampering with the data. In the Bangalore periphery region land mutations happened v fast.

40% usage for RTC documents is to obtain bank loans. Yet secondary data shows no significant increase in rural credit in Karnataka.

The RTC document by itself did not help to get credits to small land owners. So anyways they went to moneylenders as it was instant and involves less paper work.

Landless farmers who did not have RTC certificates and cannot officially apply for formal credit were unaffected by Bhoomi. Their ability to access credits remained unaltered.

Some landless farmers they have an official chit called “saguvali chit” that states their right to farm on the land. This document is not a part of the ‘Bhoomi’ database and so such farmers cannot check their status on the system.

The system allows farmers to verify the status of their property. This transparency and easy access of RTC is important for bigger land holders.

Bhoomi has computerized only 1 document out of many that are used for land administration.

It did bring about greater efficiency in the govt. service delivery.

Benefits only the land owning farmers and overlooks the landless.

Allows land sharks to target vulnerable farmers as it makes it easier to view and select records and also transfer property.

People have to travel beyond 20 km to get their RTC.‘Bhoomi’ project adopts an essentially neoliberal view of

technology. When technology projects are designed with this conception the substantial freedoms of marginalized sections are not on the top of their agenda. Caters to the interest of dominant global functionaries.

The desire for technical solutions to development problems should not take on a life of its own where we forget that development is about people and what they think and how they feel matters (Olukoshi, 2007).