Development 2.0? : the case of Kiva.org and online social lending for development

[摘要] ENGLISH SUMMARY: This study explores the application of Web 2.0 thinking to development studies. It specifically addresses ‗online social lending for development' as an example of ‗Development 2.0,' the subject of an ongoing conversation between the fields of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and international development. The paper has two aims: to develop a definition of Development 2.0, and to explore an empirical example of a Web 2.0 model that seeks to alleviate poverty. Reflecting on the literature pertaining to ICT for development (ICT4D), the investigator establishes preliminary principles of Development 2.0: facilitating citizen participation and voice, encouraging collaboration, increasing transparency and enabling relationships. These principles are then considered in the context of online social lending for development, with a particular look at Kiva.org, the microlending website at the center of the study. The empirical research for this case involved several months of interaction with some of Kiva's primary stakeholders in San Francisco, CA and Kisumu, Kenya. As a Kiva Fellow, the investigator engaged in participant observation, focus groups, analysis of secondary data, email interviews and weblog interviews with various people involved in the Kiva system. Stemming from this investigation, the author offers a descriptive and exploratory case study of Kiva's operations and its level of Development 2.0 integration. With reference to this Kiva case study and the initial Development 2.0 principles, the investigator offers a new definition: Development 2.0 is the application of Web 2.0 thinking to development studies. Development 2.0 practice takes advantage of networked social interaction and data generation, reaching the 'long tail' of the world's poor; it actively employs transparency, collaboration, and citizen participation with the aim of continual, reflexive improvement in sustainable human-centered development. The author concludes that Kiva is a relevant example of Development 2.0, but it does not offer full transparency to all stakeholders, nor does it take advantage of the full possibilities of networked social interaction, which could lead to more holistic development for Kiva borrowers. The author argues that Development 2.0 principles have intrinsic value, and should be pursued as both a means and an end for ICT4D practice. The paper ends with a call for further research into Kiva, Development 2.0, and the practice of online social lending for development.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University