from Aid as Obstacle cious-and indeed they are. Each month sees an influx of material on a range of programs ;rnd studies of "appropriate technology," mostly written in highly technica·l language. As the field expands in all directions, trends become more difficult to follow and terminology more vague. Yet at the same time that A.T. be·comes increas- _ ingly popular, the repercussions and applications of t~ese technologies in less developed countries deserve increasingly serious attention. In light of the conclusions drawn from this recent IFDP publication, non-governme~tal agencies may be the only'means through which outside resources may have the chance of helping rather than harming those in need. . , One ofthe major fallacies under which most major aid agencies operate is the assumption that the poor have been "left out" of the development process and, therefore, must now be "brought in." r The problem, identified as a lack of resburces, is resolved by a "humanitarian" gesture of economic aid and/ or technological ·assist- • ance. With slight variation, it is this same philosophy-that map.yA.T. groups also follow. The immediate shortcoming of this analysis is its historical inaccuracy. Rather than being excluded the poor have played, as IFDP puts it, an "integral role in the development process, both as resource and victim." It is not a question of bringing the poor into the development process but rather that the poor need to attain the power to direct development in their own interests. . In reviewing much of the work being done today in international development, it·becomes increasingly clear that many A.T. groups focus on technological solutions in lieu of acting on socio-economic problems. Technology is seen as an answer to many of the problems of rapid industrialtzation-hunger, poverty, _high infant mo~tality, unemployment, and scarcity of resources. This same philosophy has been applied to our own sinking economy. At heart, the development process has been defined as one of ' 1rapid economic . growth." Increased productivity, rather than a restructuring of the , economy for a more equitable distribution of resources and power, is the key. The question remains whether appropi:iate technologies , and increased production address the root of the problem or instead focus only on the effects, leaving basic issues unaddressed. •. In the past twenty years the concept of "development" has undergone some change. Initially "authors envisioned development as a lm~ar process divided in stages . . . all countries, including the developed ones, were seen as starting from the same point and facing the same obstacles as they proceeded on the same course. Some would simply move faster than others; the others1 would no dou"bt November 1980 RAIN Page 19 follow, albeit at.a distance.".(K.K. Dadzie, Scientific American, Sept. 1980. See revie·w this issue.) What this perspective conveniently ignored was the economically exploitive relationship that has existed, and continues to exist, between industrialized and less developed countries. Rather than benefitting from lessons of past mistakes and economic aid offered by the industrialized countries, the condition of the ·poorest countries has deteriorated. Rapid industrialization .failed to solve, and in_fact exacerbated, many of the so- •cjal and environmental problems already existing in those coun- . tries. The "trickle-down, spill~over" effect never occurred. The . poor got poorer, and the rich wealthier ,still. • The sixties and seventies saw revisions in the,concept of development, still prevalent today. "Basic needs" replaced the non-existent trickle. This new appro~ch fargeted the poor in develo_pment efforts, with the same superficial diagnosis underwriting it. " Implied in the statements of top policy makers is that basic needs can be met without a fundamental restructtr1ring of control over resources, through a shift: in priori~ies arid greater assistance from industrial countries" (from Aid as Obstacle). Rura:f indus\:rialization, in particular, became the focus of this new orientation toward developm~nt, and intermediate technologies were the key. When the choice of • technology becomes the pivotal point upop which development is based, one must ask for whom is this technology being used; and who makes that choice. The question of democratic choice; so often emphasized in A.T. literature, is an empty phrase when the rural poor-non·-consumers and non-sµrplus producers-have little to no economic power. Unequal division of power between industrialized and less-developed countries, anp betwern the poor and elite within developing countries, has far more influence in determining technological choice than is implied. ''Technology transfer is more than just an articulation of the economic relationships between the industrialized and the underdeveloped countries.' It is also an·important means by which those relationships are maintained and ·controlled through the constraints imposed on tefhnological choice.'' ' •Dave Dickson's controversi<'!-1 essay, "Intermediate Technology and the Third World," is still the best on the subject even though it was published over six years.ago. (The Politics of Alternative Tech- '· nology, Universe Books, N.Y. 1974). Dickson continues his examination of technology transfer by pointing out the shortcomings of an approach which attempts to separate technology from the heed\ for political change. Clearly and emphatically, he draws the connection between the two: _ . _ When it becomes identified separately.from the need for political change, ~ntermediate technology becomes.little more than a vehicle of, economic and cultural imperialism . • .. it permits the industrialized countries to impose not only cu.ltural values and-ideologies but . even, as we have seen in ·t~e case of technology transfer, direct economic control over the underdev"eloped countries. • He specifically qiticizes such well known groups as ITDG and VITA for their heavy emphasis on developing an entrepreneurial • and manage.rial class, thus accentuating tlte polarization ;ilready existing between poor and rich. "Intermediate technologies can. •quickly become the seed-bed for small-scale capitalism." While there is definite value in many of the ideas and tools that are being developed by various A. T. groups, it is essential that their \ application be considered in light of the political and social context in which they will be used. Technology is not a neutral process. To the contrary, it is an expression and reinforcement of the cultural and economic patterns from which it derives. As in the case of foreign aid, inappropriate use of a valuable tool can serve to reinforce and accentuate exploitive and repressive cqnditions which prevent the poor from assuming the power that is rightfully theirs. Devel- • opment has been seen as a matter of "things"~tools, resources, training, etc.-yet the inadequacy of this approach is evident. The example of such countries as Cuba, Tanzania, and Nicaragua le.nd support for a new definition of development, one that ties economic growth to a ·participatory, democratic process of change.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz