We have finite resources. When examining any policy whether it is local, national or international, we must always remember that money spent on one policy in one area necessarily means that the very same money cannot be spent on something else. Allocation of funds is always going to be a zero-sum game. Therefore, it is not enough just to look at the explicit costs of a policy when evaluating its costs and benefits. We must also look at opportunity costs.
While it very easy to look at a policy, like giving a laptop to every child in a developing country, and extoll its virtues and benefits, we must remember the harsh reality that the hundred dollars spent on each one of those laptops could instead be spent on something else. If we make the decision that it is best to give these countries aid, it can be very difficult to swallow the idea that we should give children laptops when they do not have food or water. While I understand the old adage about teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish and I am often a proponent of treating the cause of a problem rather than the symptoms, this policy still makes me uneasy. While in a theoretical, academic sense, I absolutely understand the need to arm these impoverished children with the technological tools they need to make money and become economically relevant. I understand that simply providing these countries with subsistence materials will only allow them to survive, continuing on the same impoverished path that they are currently on. But at the same time, how can we give these children laptops when there are so many starving to death, or dying because they do not have basic healthcare, or even access to clean drinking water?
It seems like a false choice. While giving these children laptops in the long run may be in their best interest, in the short run, it seems almost cruel. Whole families can be fed for months on a hundred dollars. Are exposing children to the World Wide Web and contemporary technology really a more desirable social outcome? Is this the best use of our funds? When I think about the logistics of giving every child in a developing country a laptop, it just does not seem worth it to me. First of all, computers break. They have bugs. They need regular maintenance. In the developed world, people often spend twenty times as much on a laptop. How many of them do not have some type of IT problem over the next few years? Without a robust technical support system, this policy seems incredibly wasteful. Additionally, as someone who has grown up seeing my peers using desktops, laptops, iPhones and iPads, I have seen firsthand that people find a way to use these machines for senseless games for a majority of their leisure time. It would take an incredibly complex, almost perfectly designed educational system with incredibly technologically proficient teachers to integrate these technologies into the educational system to make this investment worthwhile.
What do I think would be a better investment? Much like Professor Colle put forward in our first week, I would advocate for increased funding for technologically enabled universities. Rather than giving each child a laptop, this policy would instead arm the best and brightest students in each country with a much greater knowledge—both of technology and more traditional studies. These universities can help foster an environment that encourages innovation, learning and success. The recipe for the alleviation of poverty is being healthy, being fed, clothed and sheltered and being educated. People can only be so forward-looking and intellectually curious when they are sick, thirsty or wondering where they are going to find their next meal or where they are going to sleep that night. The challenge will be to promote the funding of these basic human needs while encouraging education. I do not foresee the mass distribution of expensive laptops as a solution to this problem. Universities offer so much to the communities surrounding it. This seems like a solution that will result in much less waste.
