BY c q -w w-c=onomk s e and po&ical) as urzpmbhnadc, new eseamb in relecontn#mfcaElond~lopme?#connburestotreat t e c b n d o g y a s~d a n d n e g & c t s &~o n a b e -=.The communication and development field, together with its elder sibling development economics, has undergone intense criticism and self-criticism in the past two decades (21,84,93). Claims have been made for the passing of an "old" paradigm and for the rise of a "new" one (85, 86); taking these claims at face value, many researchers have proceeded in the belief that the field has corrected course (e.g., 40; but cf. 49,66). But this uncritical acceptance neglects some basic questions: Why did the old paradigm take the particular form that it did? Why did it become dominant in that particular period? Have the contextual factors that gave rise to the old paradigm changed in the past two decades?The focus of this article is not communication and development as a whole (36, 37) but telecommunication and development] a new subfield that emerged around the same time as the publicly announced demise of the old paradigm. Its subject matter is the relation between telephones and associated interactive communication technologies and development. This new field can be distinguished from the preceding work on communication and development in regard to three aspects of the old paradigm that had come under intense criticism. First, instead of examining the content of communication, researchers in the field of telecommunication and development look at channels and networks of communication and their underlying technologies. Second, they focus on interactive communication media rather than on one-way media. Third, they shift the emphasis of development communication away from persuasion (43). Just as the radio symbolized one-way communication in the service of the topdown development so reviled by critics of the old paradigm, the telephone with its potential for interaction is seen to symbolize a new, more humane approach to communication in development.