1. The rural teleuser speaks* Findings from a six-country study of Teleuse at the Bottom of the Pyramid Presentation to the ICT4RL Workshop 16 February 2009, Negombo * Using the largest country, India, when going deep

2. TELEUSE@BOP 3 Teleuse at the Bottom of the Pyramid: 3

3. Teleuse@BOP background Objective: To understand how BOP interacts with ICTs (mostly phones) to better inform policy Large surveys of ‘BOP’ conducted in 2005, 2006, 2008 Almost 20,000 face to face interviews in 6 countries since 2005 Bangladesh (2008) Pakistan India Sri Lanka Philippines Thailand Funded by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada with contributions from Telenor Research and Innovation 3

4. Methods Multi-stage stratified sampling, random selection of households and individuals Migrant worker teleusers at “bottom of the pyramid” –SEC groups C** + D + E* –“internal” and “external” migrants that send money home –Findings available in March 2009 4 Quantitative 9,950 face-to-face interviews 1 week usage patterns via diary method (50% of sample) Sep-Oct 2008 Qualitative Focused group discussions Mini-ethnographies Depth interviews with migrant teleusers Feb-Mar 2009

5. Samples BangladeshPakistan [1] IndiaSri Lanka [2] Philippines [3 ] Thailand [4] Total BOP teleusers 2,0501,8143,152924800 9,540 Margin of error @ 95% CL (%) + 3%+ 2% + 3%+ 4% Diary Sample 1,0259001,600450400 4,775 Migrant workers 350300400200 1001,550 5 [1] Pakistan: Excludes tribal regions [2] Sri Lanka: Excludes North and East [3] Philippines: Survey was undertaken only among SEC E [4] Thailand: Excludes Bangkok as the SEC DE population in Bangkok is very small

6. Sampling logic Multi-staged stratified sampling by probability proportionate to size –Regions (states/provinces/districts) randomly selected in 2006; kept the same for comparison in 2008 (except BN) –Stratification of cities within state, province etc –Geographical ordering of cities, villages –PPS selection of cities, villages Within PSU –Random starting points –10 HH per starting point; right hand rule –KISH grid to select respondent in HH

7. Agenda WHO ARE THE BOP? BOP TELECOM EXPANSION ACCESS OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES? POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0? BENEFITS? 7 back

8. Agenda WHO ARE THE BOP? BOP TELECOM EXPANSION ACCESS OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES? POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0? BENEFITS? 8 back

9. The study represents 429 million in India Teleusers at “bottom of the pyramid” –SEC groups D + E –Aged 15-60 (Rural India: R2, R3, R4) 9 Among BOP teleusers

10. Link between SEC D+E and "$2 per day" definition BangladeshPakistanIndiaSri LankaPhilippinesThailand SEC D+E (% of population) 73596944 38 [SEC E] 33 Less than $2 per day (% of population) 788586454028 Actual population proportions 10

11. Individuals earning USD38 per month, on average 11 BangladeshPakistanIndiaSri LankaPhilippinesThailand Personal (SD) 36 (47) 37 (81) 38 (43) 54 (67) 45 (59) 79 (83) Household (SD) 117 (106) 127 (115) 99 (79) 151 (92) 127 (64) 172 (66) Mean monthly income (USD) Among BOP teleusers

12. Surprise: Phones have overtaken radios at the BOP in S Asia (less LK) 12 Mobile or fixed phone Among BOP teleusers

13. Urban-rural India 13 47% 44% Among BOP teleusers

14. Access to transport 14 Among BOP teleusers

15. Educational attainment does not exceed primary or secondary education 15 Among BOP teleusers

16. Agenda WHO ARE THE BOP? BOP TELECOM EXPANSION ACCESS OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES? POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0? BENEFITS? 16 back

17. Recent use of the phone to make/receive calls BangladeshPakistanIndiaSri LankaPhilippinesThailand % of BOP (outer sample) 95%96%86%88%79%77 % 17 BangladeshPakistanIndiaSri LankaPhilippinesThailand % of BOP (outer sample) 82%66%65%77%38%72% Used a phone in the last 3 months Used a phone in the last week Among BOP (OUTER SAMPLE)

18. More than two thirds of rural BOP teleusers in India used a phone in the week before the study 18 Among BOP teleusers

19. All modes: Public access has fallen everywhere since 2006 19 Among BOP teleusers

20. Mobiles are used most as the primary phone; public phones in second place 20 Access within the household Among BOP teleusers

21. Indian BOP public access use fallen by 38% since 2006 21 Among BOP teleusers

22. Not much difference in rural India 22 Among BOP teleusers

23. Indian women use public phones as much as men Women less likely to use their own mobile or public phones; more likely to use other peoples’ phones 23 Among BOP teleusers 1.6 : 13.5 : 12.0 : 11.8 : 11 : 1 Ratio of male to female use of ‘my own mobile’

24. 76% can get to a phone in under 5 minutes 24 2006: 13% in rural India had to travel > 30 minutes; 2008: just 2% Among BOP non-owner teleusers

25. Agenda WHO ARE THE BOP? BOP TELECOM EXPANSION ACCESS OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES? POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0? BENEFITS? 25 back

26. Total BOP phone ownership (mobile + fixed) at household level 26 Among BOP teleusers Mean price paid for new handset by the Indian BOP = USD 48; second-hand unit = USD 35

27. Extent of phone ownership (either own mobile or household fixed) Among BOP teleusers

28. Urban-rural divide in total BOP phone ownership declining 28 1.4 urban owners for every rural owner Ratio between urban and rural BOP teleusers

29. Mostly mobile phones: 90% BOP phone owners own a mobile (except Sri Lanka) 29 43% 41% 45% 73% 63% 91% Among BOP teleusers

30. Type of phone: Not very different in urban and rural BOPs in India Among BOP teleusers Total: 47% Total: 44%

31. Mobile adoption determined by: demographics, household amenities and network effects LOGIT model for mobile adoption: 31 Where A = ln (personal income) B = female (1 if true) C = primary education (1 if true) D = secondary education (1 if true) E = tertiary education (1 if true) F = walking time to nearest town G = age * age H = percentage of top five contacts with mobiles I = Bangladesh J = Pakistan K = Sri Lanka L = Philippines M = Thailand N = Electricity in the house ( 1 if true) O = percentage of household members with mobiles P = Fixed phone in the house (1 if true) Q = TV in the house (1 if true) R 2 = 0.23

32. Mobile adoption determined by demographics, household amenities and network effects Significant variables : –Demographics: Personal income, gender, education, age, proximity to nearest town –Household amenities: electricity, fixed phone,TV –Network effects: % of contacts who already have mobiles, no. of household members who already have mobiles Insignificant variables: –Urban/Rural, perceptions of benefits from phone access occupation 32

33. Many own more than one (active) SIM (India 9% to Pakistan 23%) BangladeshPakistanIndiaSri LankaPhilippinesThailand 20082006200820062008200620082006200820062008 More than 1 SIM10%12%23%5%9% 16%9%19%1%13% 33 Among BOP mobile owners

34. 16% of Indian BOP teleusers have more than 1 mobile in their households 34 Among BOP teleusers

35. When did the BOP get connected? Overview BangladeshPakistanIndiaSri LankaPhilippinesThailand Got connected in the last year (% of BOP mobile owners) 22132623148 35 Among BOP teleusers

36. Bangladesh Among BOP mobile owners (% of BOP mobile owners)

37. Pakistan Among BOP mobile owners (% of BOP mobile owners)

38. India Among BOP mobile owners (% of BOP mobile owners)

39. Sri Lanka Among BOP mobile owners (% of BOP mobile owners)

40. Philippines Among BOP mobile owners (% of BOP mobile owners)

41. Thailand Among BOP mobile owners (% of BOP mobile owners)

42. India, in more detail Among BOP mobile owners

43. Rural Indian BOP has grown more than urban in last year, but still behind 43 44% 39% Rural: 27 % got connected in the last year Urban: 19% got connected in the last year Among BOP mobile owners

44. Pakistan’s urban-rural divide is increasing 44 Among BOP mobile owners

45. Bangladesh: urban = rural 45 Among BOP mobile owners

46. Agenda WHO ARE THE BOP? BOP TELECOM EXPANSION ACCESS OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES? POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0? BENEFITS? 46 back

47. What the BOP does with the phone 47 B’deshPakistanIndiaS’ LankaPh’pinesT’land % of BOP mobile owners Taking phone calls100% 99%100%89%100% Receiving phone calls100% 98%100%99%100% Sending/receiving 'missed calls'94%84% 73%86%39% Sending/receiving SMS (text messages)32%47%33%52%100%53% Sending/receiving MMS (picture messages)1%4% 6%13%4% Sending/receiving emails0% 1%0% 1% Browsing the Internet0%1% 2%0%2% Taking photos /video clips4%2%1%8%4%18% To play games (individual)13%18%7%21%14%17% To play games (interactive)1% 3%1% To listen to the radio0%7%3%12%5%22% To listen to music (files which you have downloaded or been sent by others, not radio) 4%5%3%7%3%22% To share content that you have created (E.g. ringtones, wallpapers, pictures, games and video clips) 1%2% 6%5%3% To send or receive or download or upload other content (E.g., ringtones, wallpapers, pictures, games and video clips) 0%2%3%8%10%9% As an organizer (keep appointments, reminders, alarm and clock) 1%7%8%4%9%14% To check my bill / credit balance 11%40%25%50%3%39% Among BOP mobile owners

48. SMS popular among youth 48 Below 35 years Among BOP mobile owners

49. SMS more popular among males in Pakistan and India (literacy?) 49 Among BOP mobile owners

50. Reloading mostly via top-up cards in Indian BOP 50 Among BOP prepaid mobile owners

51. Indian BOP trusts cards more 51 Among BOP prepaid mobile owners who use each respective method 68% of Indian top- up card users “completely trust” their method 53% of Indian electronic reload users “completely trust” their method

52. Electronic reloads used less in rural India Most Indians top-up for ~USD1.50 (highest in South Asia) 52 Among BOP prepaid mobile owners

53. Most Indians top-up for ~USD1.50 (highest in South Asia); Philippines BOP is v. low 53 Among BOP prepaid mobile owners

54. Indian rural mobile owners travel 10 minutes more than urban mobile owners for top-ups 54 Among BOP prepaid mobile owners

55. Most in Indian BOP spend USD2-4 per month on prepaid mobile; long & interesting tail 55 Among BOP prepaid mobile owners

56. Agenda WHO ARE THE BOP? BOP TELECOM EXPANSION ACCESS OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES? POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0? BENEFITS? 56 back

57. Poor awareness in South Asia relative to SE Asia; LK with SEA 10% are aware of voting applications in India (competitions, real time polling, live participation in TV/radio programs, etc) 57 (n=56) Among BOP teleusers

58. Usage is even poorer, in India India (% of BOP teleusers who are aware of such services) Use regularly Use, but not regularly Banking and financial services1% Payment services Government services Health services1% Voting1% General information services Agricultural or fisheries information 58 Among BOP teleusers who are aware of services

59. Payments: Most who are aware don't know how or don't feel the need to use it 59 Among BOP teleusers who are aware of services but don’t use them

60. Who among the aware are willing to use money transfer services and govt services via a mobile? 60 Among BOP teleusers who are not aware

61. Agenda WHO ARE THE BOP? BOP TELECOM EXPANSION ACCESS OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES? POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0? BENEFITS? 61 back

62. Agenda WHO ARE THE BOP? BOP TELECOM EXPANSION ACCESS OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WHAT THOSE AT BOP DO WITH THEIR MOBILES? POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE 2.0? BENEFITS? 62 back

63. Survey asked about perceived benefits of telecom access: how has telecom access improved … Your ability to: – make more money (generally, and via sale of talk time) –find out about employment/work opportunities –access price or market information –save money –save on travel cost –act in an emergency –contact others in an emergency The efficiency of your day to day work Your relationships with family and friends Your social status/ recognition in the community 63 Five-point scale: 1=worsened  5=improved Economic benefits Emergency communication Emotional / soft benefits Efficiency

64. Largest benefits perceived in emergency communication and relationship maintenance Smallest benefit (though still positive) on economic factors 64 1=worsened 2 = slightly worsened 3=no change 4=slightly improved 5=improved Among BOP teleusers

65. Ability to save on travel costs winner among livelihood related benefits Indian males see more benefit than females in: – finding out about employment opportunities Indian females see more benefit in: – saving money (in general, and in travel cost) – maintaining relationships 65 Among BOP teleusers

66. Zooming in on the Indian BOP Indians who use the phone for business activities see more benefits in terms of: making more money (also via sale of calls), ability to find out about employment, save money, improve efficiency of daily work –77% of Indian teleusers at BOP use their mobile for business, financial or work-related purposes More than half of these do so on a daily basis 66

67. 77% of Indian teleusers at BOP use their mobile for business, financial or work-related purposes; more in BD and PH 67 Daily use Among BOP mobile owners

68. Little difference between urban and rural India Among BOP mobile owners

69. Most pronounced differences between BOPs in urban and rural Thailand Among BOP mobile owners

70. Who is more entrepreneurial? 70 Among BOP mobile owners

71. What does all this mean for ICT4RL? What are the barriers to the use of ICTs by the BOP, especially the rural BOP, for enhancing livelihoods? What do these findings mean for projects that you are involved in? What else do you wish had been studied? – Tell us. The database has not been fully mined – May be able to include in T @ BOP4 Yours to think about

72. www.lirneasia.net www.lirneasia.net search term: BOP