Rethinking Financial Sustainability in the Context of Telecentre as a Social Enterprise
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Rethinking Financial Sustainability in the Context of Telecentre as a Social Enterprise

on

  • 566 views

The main objective of this research paper is to understand the dynamics of a telecentre’s financial sustainability definition over the years and its applicability in the present context. The ...

The main objective of this research paper is to understand the dynamics of a telecentre’s financial sustainability definition over the years and its applicability in the present context. The hypothesis presented here is that if a telecentre is considered as a ‘social enterprise’, which it essentially is, the definition of its financial sustainability has to be expanded to include ‘profit making’ as an important component. Only then, a telecentres will be able to fulfill its most important objective of meeting the access, information and skill development needs of its beneficiaries on a long term and in a sustainable manner. A telecentre should not be allowed to cease its activities simply because it has run out of money!

Another related objective of this research is to briefly throw some light on the concept of ‘social enterprise’ and how it is understood by the telecentre operators/ managers, the people who are directly engaged in running and managing the telecentres. The researcher’s interaction with them over a period of time reveals some interesting findings, which are open for further discussions and debate.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
566
Views on SlideShare
563
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://www.linkedin.com 3

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Rethinking Financial Sustainability in the Context of Telecentre as a Social Enterprise Rethinking Financial Sustainability in the Context of Telecentre as a Social Enterprise Document Transcript

  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra Draft Rethinking Financial Sustainability in the Context of Telecentre as a Social Enterprise Shipra Sharma October 2011Shipra Sharma Page 1 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra Draft1. ContextA telecentre’s financial viability is seen as the most important concern in the telecentre field. In fact, beingfinancially unviable continues to be the major reason for the closure of many telecentres in India andother developing countries. Therefore, financial sustainability is central to the continued existence of atelecentre. In its absence, there are more chances of the closure of the telecentre, and with the closure ofthe telecentre, the question of its social and development impact would be eliminated automatically(Kumar, 2004).An analysis of the telecentre literature reveals that over the years, financial sustainability has beenunderstood and interpreted very differently in the telecentre domain. To some extent, it was related to theway telecentres were financed and run. It also determined the nature of the telecentre model adopted forimplementation and the success of telecentre scaling up in the developing countries. Therefore, it’simportant to understand how the concept of financial sustainability has been defined by various telecentreresearchers and practitioners over a period of time.But, before delving into the issue of financial sustainability, it is essential to take into account the evolutionof telecentre as a ‘development paradigm’. This too reflects on the way financial sustainability has beenunderstood and interpreted in the telecentre domain. Over the years, the concept of telecentre hasevolved from being a ‘Welfare State’ public access programme in the developed countries to donorsupported pilot programmes in the developing countries (to enhance and accelerate Information andCommunications Technology or ICT enabled inclusive development) to the self sustaining socialenterprise model adopted by telecentre entrepreneurs in the Latin American and other developingcountries (Sharma, 2011).It has been observed that the last one, i. e., the social enterprise model is the most sustainable financially(Mayanja, 2006, Liyanage, 2009). Gradually, all telecentre models are gravitating towards it in other partsof the world too. It beautifully aligns the entrepreneurial principles of profit making with communitydevelopment. Although profit making is generally frowned upon in the development sector, in the comingyears, it is essential to present a telecentre as a profit generating enterprise to the village entrepreneurs.The same spirit invariably leads to innovation in terms of services and products to be delivered throughthe telecentre, which has been the hallmark of telecentre success stories in the (Indian) rural areas(Rangaswamy, 2006; Kumar, 2004).2. ObjectiveAgainst this background, the main objective of this research paper is to understand the dynamics of atelecentre’s financial sustainability definition over the years and its applicability in the present context. Thehypothesis presented here is that if a telecentre is considered as a ‘social enterprise’, which it essentiallyis, the definition of its financial sustainability has to be expanded to include ‘profit making’ as an importantcomponent. Only then, a telecentres will be able to fulfill its most important strategic objective of meetingthe access, information and skill development needs of its beneficiaries on a long term and in asustainable manner. A telecentre should not be allowed to cease its activities simply because it has runout of money!Another related objective of this research is to briefly throw some light on the concept of ‘social enterprise’and how it is understood by the telecentre operators/ managers, the people who are directly engaged inrunning and managing the telecentres. The researcher’s interaction with them over a period of timereveals some interesting findings, which are open for further discussions and debate.Here, it is also important to mention that the paper explores and explains the financialsustainability of individual telecentres, not that of telecentre networks or organizationsimplementing telecentre programmes. The target audience of this paper is mainly telecentreresearchers and practitioners.3. MethodologyShipra Sharma Page 2 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra DraftThe present research paper is based on the findings of desk based secondary research supportedthrough the author’s primary research in the telecentre field (mainly South Asian countries) for the last sixyears under various ‘public access’ and ICT4D projects. The research methodology guiding this paperhas been a combination of exploratory and explanatory research. As an exploratory research, it seeks toexplore the sustainability challenge in the telecentre field, a problem that has not been clearly definedalthough there are many explanations and research on the subject. It relied on secondary research, suchas reviewing available literature as well as primary research, such as discussions and interviews withtelecentre stakeholders on various occasions1. All these together have provided significant insight into thegiven problem.As an explanatory research, this paper builds an argument around the findings of the exploratoryresearch. The researcher has tried to explain the concept of financial sustainability based on the findingsof the secondary and primary research on the subject and related issues. The desire to know "why", toexplain, is the main purpose of this paper as an explanatory research. Consequently, it goes on to identifyand explain the causes and reasons for the way financial sustainability has been understood andinterpreted in the telecentre domain and the way forward.4. The Financial Sustainability DebateTelecentres came into existence because initially in the early 1980s, even in the developed countries,‘public access to computing’ was the only solution to the growing popularity and demand for computingaccess and skill development. Computers were not yet common household items! Europes telecottagesand Electronic Village Halls and United States’ Community Technology Centers (CTCs) were set upmainly to fulfill these access and skill gaps.For their continued existence, these telecentres banked upon effective partnerships at the local level(Badshah and Garrido, 2005). For example, in Canada, telecentres were set up in a collaborative mannerinvolving the community (more specifically the community champions), local institutions and somemetropolitan agencies (for example, telecom companies), who saw opportunities in the rural "back of themarket" areas (Fuchs, 1997). Such telecentre programmes, more or less, were successful andsustainable and they continued to exist because access to technology had become a necessity by then,from being a luxury three decades back.Riding on the mixed success of telecentres in the developed countries, they were transplanted indeveloping countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America from the 1990s onwards. Its pertinent to mentionhere that during this phase of telecentre growth in the developing countries, telecentres were also seenas public access points helping the developing countries in achieving Target 8F of the eighth MillenniumDevelopment Goal or MDG (Develop a Global Partnership for Development) - “in cooperation with theprivate sector, make available benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications(technologies)” http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtml. In this way, they became an integral partof ICT led development in these countries. Here, telecentres served as a knowledge centre that providednot only access to technology and opportunities for skill building, but also instant access to knowledgeand information to the marginalized communities.As mentioned, in these regions, the telecentres were introduced under pilot projects and as pilot projects,they were financially supported by international agencies, like the International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) andInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU), who had a vested interest in learning from this pilot projectprocess so that the same could be generalized to other locations and applications (Fuchs, 1997). Theinternational donor agencies implemented these projects with the help of local organizations, for example,1 During the course of six years, the researcher has worked on various ICT4D and public access projects, such asBCO Voice Research; Enhancing ICT based Non-Formal Educational Modules, Building Multi-StakeholderPartnerships in ICT4D: Three Case Studies from India- Mission 2007, OneWorld South Asia and DatamationFoundation Charitable Trust; Conducting extensive desk and field research on Mission 2007, the Indian telecentrenetwork; Training Commons Case Study, India; etc.Shipra Sharma Page 3 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra Draftthe IDRC supported and MS Swaminathan Foundation (MSSRF) implemented Information VillageResearch Project in India.An overview of the mainstream telecentre literature suggests that financial sustainability attainedcritical dimensions during the implementation of telecentre pilot projects in the developingcountries of Africa, Asia and Latin America (See the table below). Since the telecentres were donorfunded during this phase, it was evident that the donor-recipient relationships cannot last forever. Thedonor agencies had their own well defined exit plans. It is in this context that the issue of financialsustainability acquired an all time important status (Dagron, 2002; Harris et al, 2003; Harris, 2007). Thebig question staring these pilot projects in the face was – what next? How are the telecentres going tosurvive beyond the pilot phase without adequate funds? How will they sustain their operations in the ruralcommunities with limited purchasing power? Since sustainability was not central to the planning of thesetelecentre projects, they were the hardest hit by this problem. The dynamics of telecentres’ financial sustainability definition over the yearsSr. Phases of telecentre Countries Type of telecentre What did financialNo. movement growth project sustainability mean?1 1980s Scandinavian Telecottages, Being able to recover the cost countries, Electronic Village Halls, of operations as a ‘public USA, CTCs access space’ Canada, etc.2 1990s Asia, Africa & Telecentre pilot Full donor funding and local Latin America projects NGO support; so no major financial sustainability issues3 2000 onwards Asia, Africa & Telecentre pilot Being able to ‘break even’ for Latin America projects after donor exit continued existence after donor exit4 2000 onwards Asia, Africa & Telecentre as a social Being able to generate surplus Latin America enterprise run by a revenue/ to make profit to rural/ urban support the entrepreneur and entrepreneur his/ her family4.1 Financial sustainability = ‘Breaking even’: the donor funding legacySince the telecentre was seen as a development project, during the implementation of telecentre pilotprojects, telecentres’ financial sustainability definition was influenced by how various bilateral andmultilateral donor agencies defined finanacial sustainability in the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)context. For example, USAID defines financial sustainability as the degree to which an organizationcollects sufficient revenues from sale of its services to cover the full costs of its activities, evaluated on anopportunity-cost basis (http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/sourcebook/usgov/glos.html).Another definition states that “An organisation is financially sustainable if its core work will not collapse,even if external donor funding is withdrawn” (http://www.mango.org.uk/Guide/FinancialSustainability). TheAustralian Agency for International Development also defines it in the same way as "the continuation ofbenefits after major assistance from the donor has been completed" (Australian Agency for InternationalDevelopment, 2000).The same thinking also influenced the way financial sustainability was defined during this period. It beganto be described as the capability of a telecentre project to survive beyond the “Pilot” phase when donorfunding was withdrawn (Dagron, 2002; Harris et al, 2003; Harris, 2007). A glance at the telecentreShipra Sharma Page 4 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra Draftliterature reveals that a number of studies viewed telecentres’ financial sustainability in this light (Dagron,2002; Proenza, 2002; Harris et al, 2003; Harris, 2007; Khumalo, no date; Huda et al, 2010).For example, Harris et al (2003) define “Financial viability (as) the capacity that a telecentre has forgenerating sufficient income to cover its costs of operation, and/or the cost of initially establishing it.”Proenza (2002), too, discusses full financial viability of the telecentre projects only in terms of equipmentmaintenance and replacement. Another source opines that “In practice, telecentres may be seen asfinancially viable if they cover their operating costs”(http://www.ictseminar.org/Netgrowth/ICTWorkshop/FAQ_global.asp?CategoryID=NETa64&PartnerLong=NetGrowth&Language=English).Khumalo too, although he touches upon the sustainability issue very briefly, uses the same definition andgoes a little further to mention that “… the operator must generate revenue to cover the costs and makea reasonable surplus” (Khumalo, no date). Therefore, financially, ‘breaking even’ and being able to payfor all the expenses incurred in running the telecentre and maintaining the infrastructure available at thetelecentre was considered the main pursuit in terms of sustainability. It primarily referred to the capacity ofthe telecentres to generate enough revenue to run successfully.Hence, for all donor funded telecentre projects, financial sustainability was seen as very crucial and wasalso considered as one of the most important success indicators after the donor’s exit, sometimes at theexpense of its social and development goals (Dagron, 2002). It’s important to note here that in the contextof the donor funded telecentre projects, since most of the telecentre projects were implemented under adevelopment programme coordinated by a local NGO, the emphasis remained more on inclusivecommunity development. All the products and services offered by the telecentres were available, more orless, free of any kind of charges and the concept of ‘profit making’ was a taboo (for example, thecommunity model developed under the IDRC – MSSRF telecentre programme offered free services to thecommunity).4.2 Financial sustainability = profit making: the paradigm shiftAround the same time, when the telecentre pilot projects were being implemented, some CSOs andprivate sector companies were toying with the idea of telecentre as a ‘social enterprise’ wherein thetelecentre is managed as a business by a local entrepreneur and also brings in the benefits of theknowledge society to the local community (Mayanja, 2006).This trend of viewing telecentres as a social enterprise has brought about a paradigm shift in the verynature of the telecentres, especially in the telecentre 2.0 context2. They are no longer viewed only asdevelopment projects, but as an emerging alternative livelihood option for the rural entrepreneurs.Consequently, financial sustainability too has to be viewed in a different light, i. e., beyond the ‘breakingeven’ point as an enterprise that generates enough revenue to support the entrepreneur and his/ herfamily. To achieve this, telecentres need to be viewed more and more as entrepreneurial spaces to tapseveral commercial possibilities (Rangaswamy, 2006).Cabinas publicas of Peru and TARAhaat and Drishtee telecentres, and more recently, the CommonServices Centres (CSCs) in India are such examples in sight (DIT, 2006). They brought in the concept oftelecentre as an alternative livelihood for the local entrepreneur. Since telecentres were adopted byvillage level entrepreneurs as a livelihood, profit generation no longer remained a taboo. It broadened thehorizons of financial sustainability definition to include profit making as its essential component.The above discussion shows that although financial sustainability has been something of a buzzword inthe telecentre domain, there is no agreed definition in the telecentre field. Sometimes, it has been2 Telecentre 2.0 is a general model that does away with further piloting of telecentres as a development mechanism.The Telecentre 2.0 model can help countries that do not have established telecentres on a country-wide basis indoing so by drawing on previous and well-documented experiences from other countries (Harris, 2007)http://www.unapcict.org/ecohub/resources/apdip-e-note-14-telecentre-2.0-beyond-piloting.Shipra Sharma Page 5 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra Draftdiscussed even without properly defining what is meant by it. Since ‘donor fatigue’ is clearly evident inrich nations, people are increasingly talking about telecentres standing on their own two feet andbecoming financially sustainable. In these circumstances, in simple terms, financial sustainabilitymeans being able to continue telecentre operation and being able to be there for the beneficiariesin the long run by generating enough profit for the entrepreneur to continue it as a livelihood.5. Telecentre as an (social) enterprise: challenges & opportunitiesTheoretically, a social enterprise is started by a social entrepreneur or someone, who recognises a socialproblem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organise, create and manage a business around it. His/her main aim is to bring about community development and social change through his/ her enterprise.Whereas an entrepreneur always thinks in economic terms, the social entrepreneur, in addition tofinancial development, also includes activities related to social development as a part of entrepreneurshiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship. The question worth probing here is - How manytelecentre operators understand their telecentre as a social enterprise?5.1 Telecentre as a social enterprise: a ‘top down’ understandingIt is observed that many telecentre operators (even those belonging to well known Indian telecentrenetworks) understand the concept of ‘social enterprise’ or ‘social entrepreneurship’ in a ‘top down’ way.They are taught that “you are a social entrepreneur and telecentre is a social enterprise”. Otherwise,barring some cases, most of the telecentre operators don’t understand it. As mentioned earlier, theyconsider it as yet another livelihood option3. This is because to them, a telecentre closely resembles itsmuch maligned urban counterpart, the ‘cyber cafes’ in terms of the available infrastructure and theservices and products offered on the counter, like access to computers and the Internet, skilldevelopment, etc. Most of them face challenges in selling information as a commodity; and in manydeveloping countries, eGovernance is not mature enough to provide them a sustainable source ofincome.5.2 Challenges related to ‘commoditisation’ of information and knowledgeThere are many challenges associated with the commoditisation of information and knowledge. After theirappearance in the rural areas, telecentres tried to emerge as an alternative to the conventional, ruralinformation sources, since selling information to the village community is an important component oftelecentre operations. Initially, the ‘commoditisation’ of ‘information’ or projecting ‘information’ assomething that sells was a huge challenge for the telecentres set up in rural and remote areas.In the rural context, the determining factors for selling ICT based ‘information’ are – does information sell?If yes, then, what kind of information sells in the rural communities? Moreover, how much can they affordto pay for this information? The literature reflects on these dilemmas of selling information to the ruralcommunities. Although Kuriyan and Toyama (2007) give only a passing reference to this issue, it iscentral to a telecentre’s financial sustainability. Traditionally, the rural communities were sourcing‘information’ in a very different way from their peers, elders and other external sources deemed to becreditable and respectable by them.Research on the information seeking behaviour of the rural and marginalised communities suggests thatthey seek information either within the community as traditional knowledge or from trusted and reliableexternal sources (Rangaswamy, 2006). The ‘state’ is also bound to provide ‘information’ to the rural andmarginalised communities under its welfare agenda and such information too is respected. Traditionally,rural communities have been sourcing information from:  Their peers, village elders  The government – through its health, agriculture, rural development extension workers.  The private sector – Lately, the private sector also joined the above as an information provider (most of the times as a free incentive), because it had to sell its products in the rural areas.3 This is how an average Indian telecentre operator understands the telecentre enterprise in majority of the cases.This opinion was shared with the author during her interaction with the Indian telecentre operators in the course ofseveral field visits between 2005 and 2009.Shipra Sharma Page 6 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra Draft  NGOs – Driven by their own development goals, the NGO sector has also emerged as an important information provider on agriculture, health and sanitation, etc.In addition, the ‘information’ provided by the above mentioned agencies was ‘free’! Moreover, perceivingthe telecentre as an “alien source” of information further complicated the issue (Kuriyan and Toyama,2007). In such a scenario, footfalls will increase and telecentres will become sustainable only when the‘information’ sold by the telecentres attains respectability and credibility among the rural communities.Hence, one of the prime objectives of some of the first such initiatives was to show and prove that“information sells.” While analysing telecentre case studies from India, Harris et al (2003) also express thesame thought, “By remaining in operation, Samaikya... demonstrate(d) that development information canbe sold and that a potential source of revenue exists for telecentres that provide information services thatits customers are prepared to pay for.”5.3 Struggling with technical and infrastructure issuesIn addition to the challenges mentioned above, some of the earliest telecentre social entrepreneurs had toface severe challenges with regard to connectivity, appropriate, affordable and robust infrastructure andtechnology to function properly in the rural and remote areas. It adversely affected their telecentreoperations. In fact, lack of telecommunication infrastructure and connectivity was one of the mainchallenges to telecentre’s financial sustainability leading to the closure of many telecentres in the earlyyears of telecentre experimentation in the developing countries (Proenza, 2002; Wellenius, 2003;Jauernig, 2003).5.4 The opportunitiesIn such a scenario, it was imperative for the telecentre entrepreneurs to think out of the box and innovatein terms of the services and products to be sold by the telecentre and generate income. The followingpicture shows the display of products and services sold at a TARAhaat telecentre, an initiative of Development Alternatives (http://www.devalt.org/), which generate income for the telecentre owner. All these services too add to the social capital of the community. Because such telecentres are situated in the rural areas, the youth don’t have to venture out of their village to acquire such skills. In fact, there are many examples to show how the telecentres are providing other kinds of digital services to the rural community and they are profitable. Therefore, there is a need to view the telecentres, more and more, as entrepreneurial spaces to tap several commercial possibilities to stay operational (Rangaswamy, 2006). Studies have revealed that except for thetelecentres run and managed by NGOs, the private sector or the government agencies, the mostsuccessful telecentres are the ones, which are run by business driven entrepreneurs, who are interestedin the commercial success of this enterprise…. (Kuriyan et al, 2005).A telecentres is essentially an enterprise. Because of the technology at its disposal, it has the capacity togenerate revenue. And, invariably, whether the operator/ manager runs it as a social enterprise or not, alltelecentres, including the cyber cafes, help in bridging the digital divide. They are providing access totechnology because, still, in many developing countries, computers and broadband access is notuniversal and the ITU figures justify it (http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/).Shipra Sharma Page 7 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra DraftAs far as ‘inclusion’ is concerned, even the most community development oriented telecentres are notalways 100 per cent successful. Moreover, financially, they fail miserably and cease to exist. On the otherhand, the cyber cafes are more successful world wide because they have the most replicable andsustainable governance structure known, i. e., the privately owned business, which also makes themfinancially more sustainable. Ignoring cybercafés means missing an opportunity to learn importantlessons about policy and managerial approaches that contribute to overall telecentre sustainability(Proenza, 2002).Proenza was writing at a time when a telecentre’s ‘development’ component weighed down its ‘profitmaking’ spirit unfavourably, and cyber cafes were completely excluded from the telecentre fraternity. Butcurrently, even the government initiated telecentre projects are in favour of an entrepreneurial approachto telecentre management and operation to make them financially sustainable, for example the Indiangovernment’s CSC programme (DIT, 2006). The same spirit is responsible for the success of the CabinasPublicas de Internet in Peru because they are run as family enterprises by entrepreneurs. Their mainconcern is to generate enough profit to continue Cabinas Publicas as a family enterprise and also pay forits maintenance and the staff hired to run it, as mentioned by Ana Maria Fernandez-Maldonado (Badshahand Garrido, 2005).Once the telecentres are comfortable selling the digital services needed by the rural communities, theycan sell information too in due course of time. For selling information, it is important to raise awarenessabout ‘information’ and ICTs as a valuable resource for individuals, families, organisations andcommunities (Roman and Colle, 2002). The telecentre managers and operators have to convince themabout how these are going to help them improve their lifestyle and add to their community’s development.Generally, people don’t see a significant connection between a computer and their family’s orcommunity’s development. Persuading the community to accept the ICT based information, services andproducts in itself is a huge task for the telecentre social entrepreneur.Therefore, it is imperative for any telecentre programme, whether initiated by the government or theprivate sector, targeting popular participation in the Information Society to consider planning vigorouscampaigns to illustrate the benefits of information as an important resource for daily living (Roman andColle, 2002). Only then, information will sell! Moreover, for information to sell, it has to be relevant,contextual, appropriate, affordable and available in local languages (Heeks, 1999; Proenza, 2002; Harriset al, 2003; Kuriyan and Toyama, 2007).6. ConclusionThe above discussion can be concluded by citing Rangaswamy’s observations (Rangaswamy, 2006): “….to pay for useful information, say to browse the web for a new cropping pattern or a pesticide or evenemployment opportunities may still be a difficult response (from the rural communities). People continueto depend on traditional knowledge bearers and social networks to extract and pass this kind ofinformation. However, it is highly probable that one will happily pay for a marriage to be digitallydocumented, for astrological charts or making a family film (or even for acquiring computer skills)!”. Thisobservation still holds good when telecentres are being seen more and more as enterprises. Recognizingand accepting this fact has been the way forward for attaining financial sustainability for many successfultelecentres. The best practices from the social enterprise model should be followed to achieve financialsustainability. For telecentres to function as knowledge centres, they need to develop relevant back endchannels through which they can appropriate useful and creditable informations sought by villagers.Shipra Sharma Page 8 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra DraftReferences:1. Badshah, A., Khan, S. and Garrido, M. (eds.) (2005), Connected for Development: InformationKiosks and Sustainability, United Nations Publications. http://www.amazon.com/Connected-Development-Information-Kiosks-Sustainability/dp/9211045339#reader_9211045339http://www.scribd.com/doc/26615952/Connected-for-Development2. Best, M, and C Maclay (2002) Community Internet Access in Rural Areas: Solving the EconomicSustainability Puzzle in The Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002: Readiness for theNetworked World. Cambridge: Centre for International Development, Harvard University.http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan008658.pdf3. Dagron, A.G. (2002) Prometheus Riding a Cadillac: Telecentres as the Promised Flame ofKnowledge, Journal of Development Communication, 12, 2.http://ip.cals.cornell.edu/commdev/documents/jdc-dagron.doc4. Fillip, Barbara and Dennis Foote (2007) Making the connections: Scaling telecentres fordevelopment, Academy for Educational Development, Microsoft and Telecentre.org.http://connection.aed.org/pages/MakingConnections.pdf5. Fuchs, Richard (1997) If you Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade: A Guide to the Start-up of theAfrican Multipurpose Community Telecentre Pilot Projects, IDRC, Ottawa.6. Fuchs, Richard (1998) Little Engines that did: Case histories from the global telecentremovement, IDRC, Ottawa.7. Harris, R., Kumar, A. and Balaji, V. (2003) Sustainable Telecentres? Two Cases from India, inThe Digital Challenge: Information Technology in the Development Context, Krishna, S. and Madon, S.(eds.), Chapter 8, 124-135. http://www.comminit.com/en/node/211246/3078. Harris, Roger (2007) Telecentre Sustainability: Financing ICTs for the poor, APDIP e- Note 15/2007 http://www.unapcict.org/ecohub/resources/apdip-e-note-15-telecentre-sustainability9. Ibrahim, Huda; Azman Yasin & Zulkhairi Md Dahalin (2010) Financial Sustainability Issues inMalaysia’s Telecentres, Computer and Information Science, Vol. 3, No. 2; May 2010.http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/cis/article/download/5451/483110. Jauernig, Christof (2003) Review of Telecentre Sustainability Criteria for the Establishment ofSustainable Rural Business Resource Centres for SMEs in Developing Countries, United NationsIndustrial Development Organisation, Small and Medium Enterprises Branch, Vienna, December 2003.http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/Review_of_telecenter_sustainability_criteria_for_establishment_of_sustainable_rural_business_resource_centers_for_SMEs_in_DCs.pdf11. Khumalo, Fikile (no date) Preliminary Evaluation of Telecentre Pilot Projects, Universal ServiceAgency (USA), South Africa http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/univ_access/evaluation/usa.html12. Kiri, K. and D. Menon (2006) "For Profit Rural Kiosks in India: Achievements and Challenges" inInformation for Development. Information Technologies for Development.http://www.i4donline.net/articles/currentarticle.asp?articleid=700&typ=Features13. Kumar, R. (2004) e-Choupals: A Study on the Financial Sustainability of Village Internet Centresin Rural Madhya Pradesh. Information Technologies and International Development Vol.2 (1):45-73.http://itidjournal.org/itid/article/viewFile/192/62Shipra Sharma Page 9 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra Draft14. Kuriyan, Renee, Kentaro Toyama, and Isha Ray (2005) Integrating Social Development andFinancial Sustainability: The Challenges of Rural Computer Kiosks in Kerala. Microsofthttp://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/Publication.3541.html15. Kuriyan, Renee, Kentaro Toyama (2007) Review of Research on Rural PC Kiosks. Microsofthttp://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/india/projects/ruralkiosks/16. Liyanage, H. (2009). Sustainability First. In search of telecentre sustainability. Kotte: SarvodayaFusion, telecentre.org. http://www.bookrix.com/_title-en-harsha-liyanage-ph-d-sustainability-first17. Mayanja, M. (2006) Rethinking Telecentre Sustainability: How To Implement A Social EnterpriseApproach - Lessons From India And Africa, Journal of Community Informatics, Special Issue:Telecentres, 2, 3. http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/32418. Mphahlele, M E Kutu and Maisela E. Maepa (2003) Critical success factors in telecentresustainability: a case study of six telecentres in the Limpopo Province. Communicatio: South AfricanJournal for Communication Theory and Research, 1753-5379, Volume 29, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 218 –232.19. Proenza, Francisco J (2002) Telecentre Sustainability: Myths and Opportunities in Bridging theRural Knowledge Gap: Information Systems for Improved Livelihoods, Dixon and Wattenbach (eds).http://www.e-forall.org/pdf/TelecenterSustainability.pdf20. Rangaswamy, N., Social Entrepreneurship as Critical Agency: A study of Rural Internet kiosks.International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies (Berkeley, USA), May, 2006.http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=14397821. Roman, Raul and Royal D. Colle (2002) Themes and Issues in Telecentre Sustainability, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, New York.http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/nispacee/unpan015544.pdf22. Sey, Araba (2008) Public Access to ICTs: A Review of the Literature, Centre for Information andSociety, University of Washington.23. Sharma, Shipra (2009) Telecentres as ICT access commons. Telecentre magazine, June 2009.http://www.telecentremagazine.net/articles/article-details.asp?Title=Telecentres-as-%93ICT-Access-Commons%94&articleid=262&typ=1000%20Ideas24. Stoll, K. and Menou, M. (2003). “Basic principles of telecentre sustainability”,Somos@Telecentros. 28 March 2005. http://www.tele-centros.org/CR/doc/ing/TelecentreSustainability4.doc25. Toyama, Kentaro (2010) Can technology end poverty? Boston Review, November – December2010. http://www.bostonreview.net/BR35.6/toyama.php26. Wellenius, Bjorn (2003) Sustainable Telecentres: A guide for government policy, Public Policy forthe Private sector, Note No. 251, January 2003.http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PublicPolicyJournal/251Welle-121302.pdf27. Wormald, Tom and Mátyás Gáspár (2005) Hungarian Telecottages in Badshah, A., Khan, S. andGarrido, M. (eds.) (2005), Connected for Development: Information Kiosks and Sustainability, UnitedNations Publications.Shipra Sharma Page 10 3/21/2013
  • TelecentrePaper2_Shipra DraftWebsites:1. Wikipedia contributors, "Sustainability," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&oldid=416122900 (accessed January, 2011).2. http://www.ictseminar.org/Netgrowth/ICTWorkshop/FAQ_global.asp?CategoryID=NETa64&PartnerLong=NetGrowth&Language=Englis3. http://www.sustainableicts.org/Sustainable.htm4. http://africa.rights.apc.org/alerts-content.shtml?x=63597 Online Conference on: TelecenterSustainability in Developing countries 1st - 30th July 2005.5. A discussion posted by Fatema Begum Labony on the www.telecentre.org website (dated July2009). Social Sustainability vs. Financial sustainability, which one is appropriate for telecentre initiatives?http://www.telecentre.org/forum/topics/social-sustainability-vs6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecentre7. http://www.orphanit.com/sustainabletelecentres.html8. http://www.choike.org/2009/eng/informes/3084.html#Evaluation and sustainability9. http://sustainabilityfirst.blogspot.com/10. http://ittripura.nic.in/CSC/CSC_Guidelines.PDFShipra Sharma Page 11 3/21/2013