Is the mobile phone the panacea for rural poverty?

Many scholars have hailed the mobile phone as a tool to give farming in developing countries a new impetus. However, studies on the impact of mobile phones in general, and specific mobile phone initiatives (m-services), have shown mixed results. Research has not been able to consistently show how farmers—in particular the poor—are influenced by the adoption and use of a mobile phone. This report uses a novel approach to assess the impact of mobile phones on poor farmers. The analysis was based on Duncombe‘s (2014) suggestions to make the livelihoods approach more suitable for the impact of ICT. The framework shifts the emphasis to less tangible assets, making a distinction between resource-, cognitive-, and network-based assets. A case study was done on poor farmers that make use of IKSL’s green SIM, an m-service that sends farmers daily voice messages with agricultural information. 45 in-depth interviews were held around Lucknow, India. A counterfactual consisted of richer farmers, as well as farmers without the green SIM. The respondents differ in their asset endowment, context of vulnerability and livelihood strategies. Many of the respondents’ households appear to be “hanging on”; they use their assets to maintain their current living conditions, rather than improving it. Some households are “stepping up”; they have invested in education, or saved money to diversify their livelihoods. Such farmers have higher income, better social networks and more access to agricultural knowledge. Despite the heterogeneity within the sample, most respondents use the mobile phone in similar ways. Most farmers use their phone for agricultural purposes, to help buying inputs, to ask for advice and to help with marketing. Green SIM owners use the phone even more for agricultural purposes and they generally listen to all the messages. The phone strengthens social and cognitive capital, which in turn improves the production and marketing of products. However, the precise effects on physical assets, such as higher yields and more income require further investigation. Because farmers’ resource endowment does not influence phone usage, mobile phones form useful tools for development. This research has given a more detailed picture of the impact of mobile phones on poor farmers. It has proven to be useful to shift the emphasis to less tangible assets because it is here that these effects are most keenly felt. However, this research also shows the difficulties in accurately measuring these particular assets