April 1981 RAIN Page 9 Dear RAIN, I would like to congratulate you for the hard-hitting combination you offered in your November issue: a review of Aid As Obstacle and the article, "The Do-Gooder Dilemma." I have been working in development very much at household and village level for the past fifteen years in Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique. My experience echos your strong emphasis on the political dimensions of technology generally and A. T. in particular. I don't believe one can overemphasize the political in this area. But let's be clear about the meaning of " politicaL " First, in the international power arena it is very clear that A.T. can be used just the same as energy-intensive, centralized, precision technology in the process of entangling underdeveloped countries ever deeper in dependence on former colonial and present-day technology-exporting countries. This process is a complex and sometimes subtle one, but the effect is always the same: dependency. How else are we to understand the role of such an agency as the international department of SERI acting as a go-between linking "potential customers" in Jamaica with the affiliates of major U. S. energy corporations who now " happen" to be producing A. T.? They " happen" to be producing A.T. because it has become profitable, and they are "selling" it in the same ways and with the same dependency-perpetuating consequences as any other "product." On the national and local levels within the Third World country it is clear that any technological change which raises productivity of land or labor or cuts resource costs will tend to accelerate the process by which the gap between rich and poor increases. Village electrification had this effect in India. Who denies in the face of hundreds of studies that the Green Revolution packages had this effect? Without the structural changes in power and control over resources you refer to, AT will widen the gap at village level. To turn away from these consequences and say, " we can't deny our A. T. assistance to regimes that don't guarantee such social and political preconditions" or, "we just want to reduce the burden on the poor with our A.T." is at best professionally irresponsible. I would, in fact, go further than your article in suggesting one question all technology transfer, including A.T. transfer. Following on from the notions in Aid As Obstacle, I think our major task is tryi:ng to ensure countries like Mozambique, Nicaragua and Grenada time to evolve their own social reality (and A. T. in the process). We can do that by challenging militarism, military industrialism, and the New Right offensive here at home. Yours sincerely, Dr. Ben Wisner Madison, WI Dear Laura: Congratulations on a good critique of A.T. in "The Do-Gooder Dilemma" (RAIN, Nov. 1980). There are certainly many so-called A. T. groups who do not get beyond the hardware stage of thinking. There are also many "Beltway Bandits" around Washington who use the terms"A. T." or "basic needs" to win large contracts from government agencies. And, there are many development agencies who recognize the failure of " trickle down" development but are unable to change their own structures to become "appropriate . " But, your analysis tends to give too much weight to political solutions just as some A. T. critiques (e.g. " Paper Heroes" by Witold Rybcynski) gives too much weight to hardware solutions. There is, in fact, no political system which does not have its share of poverty. Your examples, "Cuba, Tanzania and Nicaragua," are notable failures, as are Vietnam, Libya and Mozambique, which are ohen touted by the political left. Even China has shifted its development strategy to one of hi-tech, industrialization and modernization. There is leeway within any political system for appropriate technologies to ease the burdens of the poor. There is a place in the A. T. network for the ITDGs who see their role as developing small and intermediate scale technological options. There is a place for the VITA's who leave the choice to the requester and do not push only small-scale solutions. There is a place for the development agencies who are attempting to redirect thei r programs to aid the poorest of the poor. There is also a place, as you correctly point out, for the too-ohen-neglected non-governmental agencies who are best equipped to work at the grass-roots level. There is a greater need for all of us do-gooders to listen to what the poor say they need and help them obtain it rather than to assume our own definition of basic needs. And, a point you overlooked, there is a need for affluent Americans to eat fewer bananas, use less oil, stop drinking tea, reduce our consumption of rubber, and, in generaL leave more of the world's·resources for broader distribution. The point is, we are in an era of transition toward a New Age. Everyone of our institutions needs to be, and is being, reformed. There are many, many roles to be played and functions to be performed. We need to help one another fill the different niches, not just criticize them for trying. Our views are not too far apart. You tend to be more up front with your political push. I tend to see that as only waving a red flag for the establishment who want to shout "conspiracy," " socialist," or any other label they think inappropriate. Keep up the good work! Bill Ellis, TRANET Rangeley, ME Dear Friends, Thanks for the candid responses to my November article, " The Do-Gooder Dilemma: Inappropriate Technology Transfer." ObViously the concept of technology transfer eVokes strong feelings on a number of levels, the themes of which are clt·arly demonstrated in your letters. I still maintain the need fora political evaluation of technology transfer. Welcome or not, the results of our efforts have political, social and economic ramifications. Many groups seem willing to talk about the cultural impact of technologyI but rarely are the broader questions of social organization and power structures examined. My intent was not to invalidate well-intentioned efforts but rather to point dut that good intentions and ideas can be used counter to their original purposes. While it is true that we cannot define'the needs of the poor, it is important that we examine who and what does define those needs. More often than not, the poor do not have the power to define the development process, as their own needs are in conllict with the interest of ruling powers. Along With good intentions, we have responsibility for the long-range impact of our work and influence- on the poor as well as on those in power. Tanzania, Mozambique and Nicaragua were given as examples of countries that are striving toward greater democratic participation and eqUitable distribution of resources. Though they have not resolved their numerous problems of development or poverty, I have recognized them for the struggle they are undertaking to ensure a higher quality of life for all , not just a select portion of the population. O nly time.willtell how well their goals are realized. Clearly, the question of appropriate and inappropriate technology transfer will not be resolved here or now. Hopefully through continued dialogue we will be able to work toward better understanding and cooperative effort. Sincerely, Laura Stuchinsky
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz