Published in the latest issue of The Journal of Development Studies, Assistant Professor Marco J Haenssgen challenges the problematic myth of ubiquitous mobile phones in low- and middle-income countries. The rapid spread of mobile phones worldwide, with global teledensity (i.e. mobile subscriptions per 100 people) now exceeding 100%, has sparked excitement about the development potential of mobile technology in low- and middle-income countries. According to 2016 data from the industry group Groupe Speciale Mobile Association (GSMA), development projects worldwide using mobile phones include 131 in the area of agriculture, 372 in finance, and 1141 in health. The notion of “ubiquitous” mobile phones is now common, but this concept risks obscuring persistent inequalities and exclusion in low- and middle-income countries.

In his latest research article, Dr Haenssgen investigates how villagers in China and India use mobile phones, and the challenges that they encounter in this context. The research shows that the widespread availability of mobile phones did not mean that phone use was ubiquitous. The degree of utilisation was generally low, and the study argues that social factors like education, age, and gender influenced the way with which people engaged with their phones. For example, older and technologically less confident people would often limit themselves to basic uses or depend on other people to operate the phone for them – rather than excitedly experimenting with mobile phones in a trial-and-error fashion. Similarly, poor villagers without mobile phones could not always rely on a supportive community to borrow a phone, and would then often have to reciprocate a favour in return.

Reflecting on these findings, Dr Haenssgen argues, “If we continue to believe in mobile phone ubiquity, then the persistent reproduction of this myth in the global technology and development discourse will not only render it meaningless. It can also obscure potentially harmful development practices.” He goes on to explain that, “In this study, it seemed that people already at the social and economic margins of society were more likely to be excluded from using mobile phones. This does not mean that we need to be cynical about mobile phones. It’s not an ‘if-you-are-not-for-me-then-you-are-against-me’ situation. If we wanted to deliver some services and information more efficiently to a wider population, then mobile phones could help achieve this objective – although we should be conservative about our expectations. But if our objective is instead to ensure and promote equity, then we need to consider the potentially regressive impact of mobile phones.”