The topic of leapfrogging policy which many of us were unfamiliar with before studying this section is indeed an important one to consider when looking at other issues that come into relation, such as cultural imperialism, globalisation, and third world media policy.
Being on the negative team allowed me to look at leapfrogging very critically, and also consider examples in the past where the developed world has dumped agreements on the developing world, and question why this has to be the case. The debate was educational and very well handled, helping me understand the topic better and changing some of my opinions on the related issues.Leapfrogging refers to the idea that third world nations can catch up with developments in the first world by embracing the digital revolution and focusing their resources on the development of new communications infrastructures. In doing so, these nations can bypass the stages of development and modernisation that the developed world has already passed through, and thus they can leapfrog into a prosperous future within the networked global community.These countries have options, so to speak, where they can either adopt the change or innovation, gather more information about it, stop the search process and wait to reconsider things when an improved technology or better option becomes available, consider the uncertainties associated with those expectations, or, put their current situation in perspective in terms of debts, costs, and current problems.
But, as our team asked time and time again, does the third world really have these 'options' at the end of the day?The first speaker from the affirmative team put forth some interesting concepts from the readings, such as idealism vs. materialism, technophobia vs. technophilia, market vs. state, the dependency theory, the communitarianism theory, and the idea that governments along with transnational corporations and organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF are socially-responsible in helping the third world deal with their problems. According to them these bodies provide active solutions for the third world, leapfrogging being an imperative example.Our team rebutted by questions whether this has really been the case all along.
The World Bank and IMF have been criticised for some of their decisions concerning the third world in the past. These decisions relate to many various areas such as the free trade agreement, and international foreign aid programs. Here is an extract I found about this specifically, on the www.isil.org website:Feast and Famine - An Age of IronyConscience money, popularly known as "foreign aid," cannot undo the harm that is done to developing countries by trade and agricultural policies of industrial nations.
While millions of people are starving across Africa, it is not uncommon to read about ons of food being stored or destroyed in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. These reports seem as if they were coming from different planets: an impoverished Third World suffers while a prosperous First World disposes of surplus food.The negative team also emphasized that these legislative bodies tend to look out for themselves and their best interests and convenience before they really "fix the problem." The second speaker from the positive team retaliated with some very sound points and specific examples.
He spoke of how technophilia and the free market leads to more competition and the widespread use of ICT's, increasing opportunities for the third world and bringing them into the circle so to speak. He listed the consequences, like the expansion of diversity and pluralism, a break from harsh censorship laws created by the media and the government in those countries, free speech, more freedom for public and private sector activities, and that these developing countries should take on ICT's in small and powerful ways. He also suggested that if developing and developed countries work together they can solve their problems and enjoy numerous amounts of benefits.The negative team then made really clear that we were not against the use of ICT's and we understood that in many cases the use of these ICT's was beneficial to locals of the third world in their everyday lives and functioning processes. However, taking the materialism point of view (which is another stage in capitalism) and technophobia into consideration from the readings, we retaliated by saying that western technology reflects western norms and values and leads to numerous problems. Examples are isolation or radicalisation of subcultures, automisation (thus declining jobs), unwanted surveillance, homogenization, vulnerability and loss of control (to the first world), equity never really being achieved in its full form ("info-rich vs.
"info-poor"), and western culture imperialism.In conclusion, both sides had excellent points to consider, and this is just a real life example of why we, as a global community, we have spent numerous hours discussing and trying policies but still have not found a satisfactory solution to the problems of the third world. As the affirmative team suggested in their last few minutes of the debate, perhaps if we stop discussing and simply try and put solutions into actions we may find ourselves heading towards some of a solution. The first world must abandon its arrogance and the assumption that the third world wants to be exactly like them. They are like two different people who lead diverse lives with their own problems and circumstances, and their own very unique personalities.
Personally, I cannot suggest a solution but for the sake of the third world, I really hope they can be helped.
