This article in the highly influential publication Foreign Policy by Charles Kenny is kicking a straw man. It starts, “Giving Internet access to the world’s poorest will cost a lot and accomplish little” but ends with the more equivocal (and accurate) conclusion, “Communications matter to the poor. A system of well-regulated, competitive communications services will reduce costs and extend access. In many cases, it may well be worth extending access to telephony with limited, targeted, carefully designed subsidy programs. But pursuing universal access to the Internet would be a misallocation of considerable resources.”
I don’t think he’s wrong if the money spent on communications was “zero sum”. I agree access to the Internet is not likely to be as important in helping people as more basic things like basic education and health care. But of course it is important to progress on several fronts of improvement simultaneously, and the fact is that money for improving telecommunications infrastructure seldom comes from the same sources as money for primary education etc.
Most importantly, while subsidising universal access may be excessive at this stage in the development of the Internet, that doesn’t mean that as costs lower the cost/benefit of providing Internet access my be better than the cost/benefit of other aid activities in certain areas under certain circumstances.
[Later] Peter Thomas suggests (if I understand him correctly) that there are people who are seriously advocating universal access not just targeted access. I would just say that since universal access is so far away it is safe to use as, if you like, a propaganda tool to lever money out of organizations to accomplish certain tasks in the name of wider access. Let’s worry about the absurdity of trying to offer universal access when the developing world has reached the levels of access available in the West.
