Europe’s Information Society project and Digital Inclusion: universal service obligations or social solidarity?

The importance of digital inclusion to Europe is obvious: as we move towards an ever more internet-communicating society the lack of access to basic digital infrastructures for a significant segment of the population is both problematic for those individuals without access and also problematic for those providing services which should be efficient and fully utilised. The EU’s ‘Information Society’ project has been the central plank of the European attempt to build a European digital marketplace, a concept which necessitates digital inclusion of the population at large. It is a project which prefers universal service obligations to achieve inclusion. If that is to be the preferred solution I suggest that we must consider exclusion from the banking system, given that the Information Society is at root an economic community.

However, universal service obligations are not the only method whereby digital inclusion can be encouraged and I posit we may need to reconsider the role of the state as supplier of services through the concept of ‘social solidarity’.

The New Concept of Universal Service in a Digital Networked Communications Environment

Digitization, sophisticated fiber-optic networks and the resultant convergence of the media, communications and information technology industries have completely transformed the communications ecosystem in the last couple of decades. New contingent business and social models were created that have been mirrored in the amended communications regimes. Yet, despite an overhaul of the communications regulation paradigm, the status of and the rules on universal service have remained surprisingly intact, both during and after the liberalization exercise. The present paper looks into this paradox and examines the sustainability of the existing concept of universal service. It suggests that there is a need for a novel concept of universal service in the digital networked communications environment, whose objectives go beyond the conventional internalizing and redistributional rationales and concentrate on communication and information networks as a public good, where not only access to infrastructure but also access to content may be essential.

Universal service : hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifth Congress, first session.

Shipping list no.: 2000-0182-P (pt. 1), 2000-0166-P (pt. 2), 2000-0186-P (pt. 3).

Public-public partnerships (PUPs) in water

Water operators need to be efficient, accountable, honest public institutions providing a universal service. Many water services however lack the institutional strength, the human resources, the technical expertise and equipment, or the financial or managerial capacity to provide these services. They need support to develop these capacities. The vast majority of water operators in the world are in the public sector – 90% of all major cities are served by such bodies. This means that the largest pool of experience and expertise, and the great majority of examples of good practice and sound institutions, are to be found in existing public sector water operators. Because they are public sector, however, they do not have any natural commercial incentive to provide international support. Their incentive stems from solidarity, not profit. Since 1990, however, the policies of donors and development banks have focussed on the private companies and their incentives. The vast resources of the public sector have been overlooked, even blocked by pro-private policies. Out of sight of these global policy-makers, however, a growing number of public sector water companies have been engaged, in a great variety of ways, in helping others develop the capacity to be effective and accountable public services. These supportive arrangements are now called 'public-public partnerships' (PUPs). A public-public partnership (PUP) is simply a collaboration between two or more public authorities or organisations, based on solidarity, to improve the capacity and effectiveness of one partner in providing public water or sanitation services. They have been described as: “a peer relationship forged around common values and objectives, which exclude profit-seeking”.1 Neither partner expects a commercial profit, directly or indirectly. This makes PUPs very different from the public–private partnerships (PPPs) which have been promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank. The problems of PPPs have been examined in a number of reports. A great advantage of PUPs is that they avoid the risks of such partnerships: transaction costs, contract failure, renegotiation, the complexities of regulation, commercial opportunism, monopoly pricing, commercial secrecy, currency risk, and lack of public legitimacy.2 PUPs are not merely an abstract concept. The list in the annexe to this paper includes over 130 PUPs in around 70 countries. This means that far more countries have hosted PUPs than host PPPs in water – according to a report from PPIAF in December 2008, there are only 44 countries with private participation in water. These PUPs cover a period of over 20 years, and been used in all regions of the world. The earliest date to the 1980s, when the Yokohama Waterworks Bureau first started partnerships to help train staff in other Asian countries. Many of the PUP projects have been initiated in the last few years, a result of the growing recognition of PUPs as a tool for achieving improvements in public water management. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the typical objectives of PUPs; the different forms of PUPs and partners involved; a series of case studies of actual PUPs; and an examination of the recent WOPs initiative. It then offers recommendations for future development of PUPs.

Working paper on the eLAC 2018 Digital Agenda in consideration of Caribbean priorities for technology-supported development

eLAC 2018 will coordinate the implementation of programmes to support the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) in achieving social and economic development goals for Latin America in the Caribbean during the 2015-2018 timeframe. The conceptual framework for this programme of work is described by the eLAC 2018 Digital Agenda, which is anticipated to be ratified by the fifth Ministerial Conference on the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean, to be held in August 2015 in Mexico City. There is a need for broader input from Caribbean countries to the eLAC 2018 Digital Agenda. Accordingly, this working paper reviews the document’s current draft, considering each of its objectives in the context of Caribbean development needs. Amendments are recommended to 12 of the objectives. Two additional objectives are also proposed, in the areas of regional coordination on universal service funds, and the establishment of a spatial data infrastructure to support the use of geographic information systems. Representatives of Caribbean countries are invited to use the contents of this document as an input to the development of their own proposed amendments for inclusion in the final version of the eLAC 2018 Digital Agenda.