Electricity Does Not Change Poor Lives as Much as We Thought

Drocella Yandereye, who is living in one of the world’s poorest countries, owns a small farm, a new
house, and an electric light, which is unusual in her case. Ms. Yandereye has a small solar panel on her
roof that is connected to a wall-mounted battery, which was used to power most of the lights she was
using. Her neighbors were admiring her lamps, which were bought from a charity, and considering that
they live in a poor and remote place, this only shows that they desire electric light and power but cannot
afford it.

Some countries and organizations are now rushing to illuminate the world and develop objectives such
as the UN's goal, which is universal access to power in the year 2030. India, Myanmar, and Senegal were
already connecting every village to a power grid. Meanwhile, in Rwanda, the government already claims
to have connected 31% of households to the electricity grid and another 11% are thought to have solar
power. They are now trying to connect every household to the grid or solar power by 2025.

Many studies have come to prove and argue that electrification’s cost exceeds its benefits for poor
people and that rushing to do so with a lot of scarce cash may not be a good idea. A study by Mr. Grimm
and his colleagues found that Rwandans who were given solar lamps responded by lighting their
households more brightly, for more hours each day. They burned less kerosene, and their children
studied a little more, especially at night. But the adults’ working lives changed hardly at all. Solar lamps
appear not to rescue people from poverty. Another study of rural Tanzania found little effect on adults’
welfare. Offering cheap connections cut the proportion of people living on less than $2 a day from 93%
to 90%—hardly a transformation. Children’s lives changed those who were connected went from
watching almost no television to one and a half hours a day and did even less housework than before.

Another fact is that a connection to the electricity grid is far more expensive. One study of Rwanda
published last year, by Michael Grimm of the University of Passau and others, found people ready to pay
between 38% and 55% of the retail price for solar-lighting kits, on average. Shops selling solar home
systems reported that many of their customers are middle-class urbanites already connected to the
electricity grid. Some are buying kits for their parents in the villages. Others have become frustrated
with flickering mains’ power and want a backup. Academics at the University of California also tested
Kenyan villagers’ willingness to pay. They offered a large subsidy, which brought the price of a
connection down to $171 but only 24% of people plumped for it.

About this, alternatives have risen such as the solar home systems which are far cheaper to set up,
though it provides much less power than grid connections. Another one is a simple torch powered by
batteries wired to LEDs which is once introduced by a Rwandan woman. These are extremely cheap,
costs about $0.25, and are available from village shops.

Furthermore, Robin Burgess of the IGC argues that a short-run study of households may not be the right
lens: electrification might mostly benefit businesses, and not at once. We may find more benefits in
other areas if we broaden our scope. Using the cost-benefit analysis may be favorable to some studies
and the gathered data today will be a lot more different tomorrow, next week, next month, or even in
the following years. But in consideration of the poor countries of the world, illuminating the world may
not be favorable to them especially when the resources are scarce.
Discuss how well reasoned you find the below argument. In your discussion
be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the
argument