E–Learning
Volume 5 Number 3 2008
www.wwwords.co.uk/ELEA
337 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2008.5.3.337
A Chicken in Every Pot; One Laptop per Child:
the trouble with global campaign promises
LINDA SMITH TABB
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
ABSTRACT The object of this article is to analyse the possible viability of the global education project
One Laptop per Child (OLPC), and to trace some of the recent events impacting the project. The XO
laptop, a unique machine, has itself become an iconic symbol. Its impact as a cultural product in a
global market that targets the transformation of primary education in the developing world is
examined. This article also looks at the larger issue of information and communication technology and
its use in development (ICT4D). Intellectual property rights in the global context, the workings of
global governance structures, the future of Net neutrality, and the use of open source software vs.
proprietary software could each have a lasting impact on this project. This article also takes a view of
the project from an educational policy perspective, looking at issues of global convergence of policies
and practice.
Introduction
Nicholas Negroponte, former chairman and co-founder of the MIT Media Lab, is on the campaign
trail these days, but he is not running for elected office. Unlike so many others on the stump and
becoming increasingly familiar to us through the media, he is selling. But what is he selling? Is it an
idea, or is it a project? Is it a mission, or is it just a product? Is his selling more about markets, or
development? And in recent months, what with the addition of Microsoft Windows to an originally
self-proclaimed open source project, is he selling out? Is the ‘One Laptop per Child’ (OLPC)
initiative one that will transform primary education in the developing world? If it were to, would
that be enough? Should information technology be expected to save? Or will it serve as a reminder
of other postmodern global concerns? Can a small machine that is not just green, but ‘green’ be this
keen?
These are important concerns because there is genuine need for increased educational
initiatives in the developing world. In 2000, when the United Nations (UN) Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) were announced, although many of the goals might be achieved in
partnership with educational goals, one goal specifically targeted primary education. MDG 2 is to
‘achieve universal primary education’. At the midpoint, progress has been made in getting more
children into school in the developing world. Enrollment in primary education grew from 80% in
1991 to 88% in 2005. Girls and children from poorer or rural families are least likely to attend
school and one child in five who is old enough to attend secondary school is still enrolled in
primary school (Millennium Development Goals Report, 2007).
At the OLPC Country Workshop at the MIT Media Lab on 20 May 2008, keynote speaker
and Member of the European Parliament Nirj Deva even called for the OLPC program to be
designated by the UN as a new Millennium Development Goal, or MDG 9.
Will the green machine be a symbol of empowerment or of dependency? Will its existence
inspire altruism or competitive greed? Will transnational corporations find ways to copy it, or block
it by use of intellectual property or patent law through organizations such as the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO)? Will a possible future including a global patent system lock out

Linda Smith Tabb
338
local innovation and control? Will Net neutrality be assured such that the Internet itself does not
become a venue for global inequality? Can governance structures such as the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names (ICANN) continue to be de facto United States government assignees? Will the
World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), where in 2005 in Tunis rough prototypes of the
machine were unveiled, make a difference with its newly formed Working Group on Internet
Governance (WGIG)? These are important questions because regardless of the merits of the
machine itself, issues of neo-liberal economics and the market, and governance structures in the
pockets of both governments and transnational corporations could greatly impact the outcomes.
And if the machine does make a difference to some children in some parts of the world, is it a
difference that is sustainable? Can education in a small green package be expected to be the
solution to every big problem, including poverty, peace and the environment? Is information and
communication technology (ICT) alone the preferred development tool for education? Or do the
learning goals suggested by the OLPC, smack of neo-liberal governmentality transplanted from the
developed world to the developing world?
If it were to be a success, could it catch on in the developed world, especially in the United
States where growing inequalities make it more and more difficult to ensure that ‘no child is left
behind’? Or, like the No Child Left Behind Act, is this a project that is both overly ambitious and
unrealistic in its aspirations, but on a global scale?
The object of this article is to analyse the possible viability of a global education project,
OLPC, that uses a product designed especially for the project, and markets it to national
governments and other concerns. This article will also look at the larger issue of ICT and its use in
development. It will also attempt to sort out the regulation of intellectual property rights and
patent in the global context and explain the workings of governance structures and organizations in
this realm. The issue of project sustainability and relevance of such a project to other development
goals will be examined. And, finally, the closing section seeks to look at the OLPC project from an
educational policy perspective, looking at issues of the possible convergence of policies and
practice.
‘Un poulet dans chaque gamelle de paysan, tous les dimanches’ – Henri de Navarre
Campaign slogans and promises made have long been a part of the political process. One well-
known, but oft misappropriated, slogan, ‘a chicken in every pot’, has been attributed to several US
presidents, but is most associated with Herbert Hoover. He actually did not utter these words.
Rather, a Grand Old Party (GOP) 1928 campaign circular for Hoover promised, ‘A chicken in every
pot and a car in every garage’. But this type of promise originated with Henri IV, the first Bourbon
king of France, who proclaimed, ‘a chicken in every peasant’s pot, every Sunday’.
In his time he was a master of the media – ready with a bon mot, a moving manifesto, the right
mix of authority, humor, and earthiness. The sixteenth century was an age of media explosion,
with political pamphlets, tracts, broadsides, books advocating all sorts of ideas, bringing news
from far away, and explaining how to do everything.[1]
Information technology and even global media per se are not entirely new concepts, and according
to Dicken (2007, p. 73), ‘the ways in which technologies are used are conditioned by their social and
economic context’. However, a change in the technology system in the area of information
technology means that a campaign slogan today, because of digitization, can be transmitted
anywhere in the world almost instantly (Dicken, 2007, p. 77). The evolution of electronic mass
media, the Internet and other time–space shrinking technologies means that a campaign such as
OLPC reaches a more global audience than ever before at a quicker rate of speed and accessibility.
The One Laptop per Child XO Laptops
The low-cost XO laptops are manufactured by the Quanta computer company in Changshu,
Jiangsu Province, China, located about two hours north-west of Shanghai where labor is reported
to be 20% cheaper than in Shanghai (Vota, 2006; Katz, 2007). The specifications of the computer
are geared especially to the needs of children. Drop tested at 15 feet, the machine is specially
crafted for difficult environments with built-in shock absorbers. Its keyboard and touch pad are