eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
In Science and Technology for Development, James Smith explores the complex relationship between society and technology, and the potential for science to make sustainable contributions to global development. Drawing on case studies from Africa, Latin America and Asia, the author argues that we need to think carefully about science and development, otherwise the perpetual promise of future technological breakthroughs may simply work to distance meaningful development from the present.
This book is essential reading for all students of development.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781848137776 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Bloomsbury Publishing |
| Publication date: | 04/04/2013 |
| Series: | Development Matters |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 160 |
| File size: | 868 KB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Science and Technology for Development
Development Matters
By James Smith
Zed Books Ltd
Copyright © 2009 James SmithAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84813-201-6
CHAPTER 1
Rethinking Technology for Development
The role of technology as an engine (or perhaps more accurately the driver) of development has been a constant since colonial times. There are striking parallels between science and colonialism and technology and modern development – a coupling of science and technology and economic development to forge change, to generate new connections within the world and transform societies into facsimiles of an idealized social order in the name of 'progress' (Ferguson, 2004). Within these ideas is a strong sense of the certainty and inevitability of change, a feeling that the future can be mapped out, and implicit within this is the notion that past histories and context are somehow unimportant. Only the future counts.
More explicitly in the case of modern development, theory holds that technology and economic development can generate new connections within the world, and transform 'developing countries' into their modern, industrialized, developed counterparts; this would advance humanity 'from kinship to contract, agriculture to industry, personalized to rational or bureaucratic rule, subsistence to capital accumulation and mass consumption, tradition to modernity and poverty to wealth' (Edelman and Haugerud, 2005: 2). The idea of a linear trajectory from one stage to another, from pre-technological to technological, from traditional to modern, from indigenous to scientific is implicit within most mainstream development thinking, and was implicit – if perhaps considered less of a priority – in most colonial thinking. Colonial and development thinking, so different in terms of aim and ideology, are stitched together by the shared idea of the application of technology.
The introductory chapter quoted Harry Truman's inaugural address as an illustration of how closely the relationship between technology and development was conceived: global poverty would be solved by vigorous application of modern scientific and technical knowledge (Truman, [1949] 1964). Development remains as bound up and enamoured with science and technology as colonialism was, and certainly as Harry Truman was. Indeed, if anything, a series of recent high-profile initiatives, reports and policy documents have signalled a renewed belief (and calls for renewed investment) in the role science and technology should play in development. For example, the United Nations Millennium Project Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation reiterates the need to harness science and technology sustainably to accelerate development (Juma and Yee-Cheong, 2005). The October 2004 UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report on 'The Use of Science in UK International Development Policy' drew on a wide range of expert knowledge to illustrate the importance of generating real capacity through development, partnerships, and science and technological innovation. Building science and technological capacity is seen as a lever to draw together the 'yawning divide between North and South' (House of Commons, 2004: 44). The Commission for Africa report, Our Common Interest, juxtaposes our ability to map the human genome and 'clone a human being' with our inability to prevent African women from dying in childbirth. Africa's lack of investment in science and technology is contrasted to Asia's investment. The document calls for a series of centres of science and technology excellence to be set up across the continent (Commission for Africa, 2005).
This chapter seeks to examine why science and technology are regarded so universally as the lever through which development can be ratcheted up a notch or two, and in doing so will discuss ways in which we can undertake a more critical exploration of the relationship between science, technology and development. Case studies of trajectories of development in various countries, seed breeding in Southern Africa, information and communication technologies, and science policy, amongst others, are used to illustrate some of the thinking and narratives that have driven science and technology as the key to development.
Modernization, linear progressions and 'technological determinism'
Rostow, in his highly influential Non-Communist Manifesto (1960), elaborated a 'take-off' that all countries would eventually achieve (note the technological metaphor). Rostow characterized countries as passing from one stage to another of a five-stage model; from 'traditional society' characterized by 'pre-Newtonian' technology and little rational decision making, through a pre-take-off stage, then 'take-off' in which 'traditional' impediments to economic growth are overcome, to a 'drive to maturity' which is marked by technological innovation and enlargement of the industrial base, and finally to the 'age of mass consumption', exhibiting widespread affluence, urbanization and the consumption of 'consumer durables'. In all these stages Rostow was careful to couple advancing technology and new knowledge (in giving up 'traditional' ideas) to economic development and industrial modernization.
Development in this context becomes a macro-economic drive towards modernity, 'an expression of modernity on a planetary scale' (Berthoud, 1991: 23). Rostow sought to develop a rejection of the inevitabilities that Marx portrayed in Capital but in the process succeeded in producing something similar in the narrative of the 'inevitability of take-off' it portrayed. In some respects it projected something even grander, an inevitable transformation of every country, if they were to follow the rules. From a different perspective this can be seen in terms of a discourse of the 'non-existent': developing countries may desire to become developed, but cannot because something is missing (Sorj, 1991). Rostow's ideas, and the concept of modernization they influenced, represent a highly temporalized historical sequence: poor people and poor countries 'were not simply at the bottom, they were at the beginning' (Ferguson, 2006: 178). From this perspective, development would be the 'black box' that would enable take-off, while the poor, the 'less developed', were expected to be passive receivers of development, of Western values, knowledge and technology (Rist, 1997).
The UN Millennium Report on Science and Technology for Development echoes Rostowian and modernization theory: 'Economic historians suggest that the prime explanation for the success of today's advanced industrial countries lies in their history of innovation along different dimensions: institutions, technology, trade, organization, and the application of natural resources' (Juma and Yee-Cheong, 2005: 27). The report goes on to discuss the economic development of Finland, asserting that since the 1980s it has transformed itself from a country dependent on natural resources to one at the top of the list of most indices of global competitiveness by investing heavily in research and development and reformulating its support for education, research and innovation (ibid.: 28). Finland – economically, developmentally, geographically, and perhaps in any way one can think of – is clearly very different from the average developing country. Nevertheless, it is offered as a blueprint. The report cites a World Bank-funded study that developed four categories of countries: scientifically advanced, scientifically proficient, scientifically developing, and scientifically lagging countries (Wagner et al., 2001). In this formulation, the role of technology is foregrounded as the determining factor that drives development. Where development has not occurred or has been slow, the limiting factor has been a lack of technology, a lack of access to technology, or a lack of the knowledge necessary to use technology. To invest in the promise of technology is to profit in progress. Not investing in technology means lacking a fundament of progress, development and modernization.
Asian Tigers and the role of technology
The idea of 'technological catch-up' is frequently referred to as a means by which poorer, 'follower' countries can catch up with and even, in some respects, overtake richer, 'leader' countries (Forbes and Wield, 2002). Much of this work is derived from a different economic tradition than the neoclassical economics of Rostow and modernization theorists (for example, Juma and Clark, 2002). Evolutionary economics argues that rather than converging towards the economies and levels of productivity of the more developed countries, countries may follow different paths. There are various factors that can allow countries to jumpstart their economies, including the ability of governments to design and implement appropriate economic policies and the technological and skill level of the population. Many of these policies and the need to develop a country's skill base are highlighted in research (Abramovitz, 1989; Makinda, 2007) and reports such as the UN Millennium Report (Juma and Yee-Cheong, 2005). New technologies, too, may offer the opportunity for countries to develop niches for themselves (Meier, 2000; Niosi and Reid, 2007). One important caveat is that it is generally the larger, more advanced economies that have the potential to harness and profit from new technologies such as biotechnology, nanotechnology or information and communication technologies. In many cases the Rostowian problematic of just how does one evolve from one stage to the next remains unsolved, and the narrative of progress remains central to alternative models of economic development.
'Technological catch-up' remains an idea that many countries aspire to, a condition that much policy is developed to support, and an enterprise many institutions are set up to develop. Unfortunately, it seems the capacity and resources needed to harness technology as a driver of economic growth are in themselves manifestations of economic growth. Progression seems intuitive in theory, but much more complex in practice; effectively harnessing technology to aid economic growth remains the capacity of well-developed, modern economies and these disparities have not proved easy to short-circuit. Evolutionary economics presents an alternative perspective on economic development to Rostow, but in tying technology and economic growth tightly together it presents another take on modernization theory. Huge disparities in wealth, resources and capacity to innovate and utilize technologies mean that 'catch-up' is difficult to achieve on a broad scale and we risk falling back into simple narratives of technological determinism.
However, the four East Asian 'Tiger' economies are frequently cited as examples that offer hope to developing countries and a model they should aspire to in terms of economic development, modernization and 'catch-up'. Until the stock market crash of the late 1990s, the Asian Pacific was considered to be the world's success story of economic development and technological modernization. Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan enjoyed average annual growth rates of GNP of between 8.9 per cent and 7.5 per cent between 1965 and 1996 (during which time the growth rate for the world at large was 3.1 per cent) (Castells, 1998). Manuel Castells has provided a detailed comparative analysis of the causes and trajectories of development of the four countries, and what is most striking are the differences.
The cases of the four Asian Tiger economies are useful in two ways. First, they stress the role technological development can play in economic growth and development: their success was based on investing in technology integrated into their economies. By contrast, many Latin American countries invested in science and research, for example in building excellent universities, but this did not translate into economic gains on the scale the Asian Pacific enjoyed. Second, they underline that societies are not global and uniform, but profoundly historically and culturally rooted. Simple narratives of modernization are often guilty of not appreciating this diversity. What worked for European countries is not what worked for the Asian Tigers – and neither is it likely to be what will work in Africa and South Asia. Within these histories it is important to recognize that the role of technology is contingent and not unitary.
Claims for technology and the knowledge to create it also risk a-historicizing development. There is almost a sense that all developing countries lack is science, knowledge and technology: 'the entire international system of stratification has come to be based not on "who owns what" but on "who knows what"' (Mazrui and White, 1988: 359), or 'Africa's poverty and lack of global influence appear to stem from its weak technological and knowledge base' (Makinda, 2007: 973). No serious historian of African or Third World underdevelopment would attribute global inequalities solely to 'who knows what'. Wiping away the context in which technology can play an important role in development is not likely to ensure its effectiveness or help us understand what roles science and technology can play. Indeed, it almost serves to divorce science and technology from society and the economy, which, as we can see with the Asian Tigers, is where it is effective. Ultimately, in focusing almost solely on knowledge we risk ignoring the enormous structural and infrastructural constraints developing countries face.
Technological determinism and societal change
These calls for investment in more and better knowledge in science and technology are not simply calls for new technologies to be transferred from North to South, or from laboratory to field. They are calls for the creation of new technological spaces: new ways of thinking about science and technology, new places where technologies can be created, new policies to support science for development, and new societal configurations which can assimilate, adapt and absorb new technologies. The UN Millennium Report talks not of 'simply ... installing devices, but [of] transforming society and its value systems' (Juma and Yee-Cheong, 2005: 15). It is clearly not sufficient to think of technology antiseptically as something inert, neutral and devoid of its own context, as something that will exist through knowledge, as something to be transferred via a sort of developmental osmotic potential or summoned through the calculus of poverty. Somewhat paradoxically, the problem is identified as a simple deficiency in knowledge; the solution is presented as an entire reworking of society and its value systems in order to harness technology. Modernization theory proposes a sort of technological determinism in which the technology is obscured or absent (Smith and Marx, 1994). Developing countries need technology, but as they lack the knowledge to use technology productively they need to reorganize to develop the skills and knowledge to do so. Policy, in proposing something simple, is in fact promoting something profound and transformational. Technology, or in the case of developing countries its relative absence, prescribes a certain type of society in order to drive progress. While it is indeed true that to harness technology effectively for economic growth countries need to establish the conditions and expertise to do so, as the Asian Tigers did in their different ways, we need to think very carefully about the implications of reconfiguring society for technology and the effects of technology on society. It is wholly insufficient to talk only in terms of 'deficits', 'investment' and 'transformation'; the impact of technology is far more profound than that.
The reflexivity of the Green Revolution
The Green Revolution has been used to describe the systematic and centralized development of new hybrid cereal varieties and agricultural management practices that were introduced across Asia in the 1960s and 1970s. The ethos of the Green Revolution developed with the transformation of agriculture that began in Mexico with the development of high-yielding hybrid varieties of wheat and in the Philippines with the development of hybrid varieties of rice. Modern, Western scientific approaches to crop breeding were applied to the problem of low and declining crop yields and this highly focused approach resulted in the release of a succession of new varieties of staple crops such as rice and wheat with the potential to provide much higher yields under optimum conditions. It was assumed that applying scientific techniques that had worked in North America and Europe would produce similar agricultural development in less developed countries. The focus was very much on producing new varieties of crops; little initial attention was focused on how agriculture was practised, how farmers would adopt new varieties and what the consequences of these new crop varieties would be. There was an associated transformation in agriculture related to how agricultural research was undertaken, agricultural extension, the use of inputs like fertilizers, and the introduction of technologies such as irrigation systems (some of these issues are discussed in more detail in the next chapter). The Green Revolution raised average cereal yields but the impacts were not uniform and some suggest long-term social and ecological problems were provoked.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Science and Technology for Development by James Smith. Copyright © 2009 James Smith. Excerpted by permission of Zed Books Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
AcknowledgementsAcronyms
Introduction
1. Rethinking Technology for Development
2. The Institutionalisation and Internationalization of Science
3. Making Technology Work for the Poor?
4. Governing Technologies for Development
5. Conclusion: Can Technology Transform Development?
Glossary
Bibliography