Appropriate technology and "Low Tech" transfers in Africa
by Jean-Baptiste G... - 26/01/2010
Dear all,
I am studying Local Economic Development at the London School of Economics and I am exploring, for my dissertation, the notion of "Appropriate technology" in the context of technology transfers.
Here is the starting point of my reflexion: for many years, inadequate technology transfers from OECD countries to African ones have failed to foster a developing process because they were based on the "one-size-fits-all" illusion. It is still going on with a demesurate focus on ICTs that more often than not produces cathedrals in the desert.
As a response to that, more and more locally-based innovation policies are set up, often developing very simple "low tech" devices and these experiences are shared on plateforms such as LEDNA.
I would aim at proving that this kind of technical progress is more transferable than "official" technology and, even more important, is more appropriable by other communities, helping to start a real economic development process.
Therefore, I would need your contributions to collect data on this topic. If you have any experience on this kind of technology transfer, either as exporter or as receipient (or as transfer facilitator) I would be glad to get in touch with you. I really think this kind of transfer is an efficient, sustainable and easy option to diffuse economic development and therefore its existence should be acknowledged better by LED practionners everywhere.
Thanks in advance.
Jean-Baptiste Geissler
PS: You can contact me either in English or in French
Search LEDNA
Why join LEDNA?
Find Out
Latest Blog Posts
Next Events
Jobs & Opportunities
Appropriate technology
Hi Jean-Baptiste
To some extent, inappropriate technology may have been foisted on developing countries because of a one size fits all illusion, I think a one size fits all is always an assumption. But I don't think that wholly explains the thinking behind foisting expensive, inappropriate and often useless technology on countries that needed help.
I think that many companies wanted to sell something they couldn't sell at home or couldn't sell enough of at home. A big funder would put out a tender for some kind of project and a big engineering company (say) would bid for it. It's just business.
I think many big funders want to support their own country's industries, aid has long been used as a kind of de facto subsidy. The countries who talk most about getting rid of subsidies are often the best at using subsidies when it suits them.
To be honest, I would question whether many funders and especially many of the companies involved in the 'technology transfer' really cared whether the technology was appropriate or not, it was just business for them. There are many expensive projects that never went anywhere but that's not the problem of the companies who profited from these constructions.
I hope you're right about low tech devices being more transferable and more appropriate and more acceptable,these are empirical matters. Just finding reports that say certain projects were very successful doesn't count for much. No one is going to spend millions on a project and then say it was rubbish (except perhaps UNICEF).
I don't think a lot of big funders are interested in low tech or in things being appropriate, they still have the same imperatives and the companies involved still want to make big profits. People like Gates is certainly not interested in low tech, appropriateness, acceptability or transferability.
I am working with community based organisations to do many things with the aim of developing income generation activities. One of the things we have been trying to do is interest people in devices like solar cookers. We are in Kenya, close to the Equator, and there is plenty of sun. Wood is expensive and supplies are dwindling. Charcoal is the main cooking fuel and that's not going to change quickly.
Solar cookers are easy to explain to people, easy to demonstrate, easy to use, cheap to buy, cheap and easy to make, they have many advantages, including the 'selling point' that they save people money. Do you think this makes them an easy sell?
Sadly, it's not an easy sell. There are probably many reasons and many people here are very dependent on handouts of various kinds. Getting them to make and use solar cookers is not their idea of a desirable handout, for many people, anyhow.
Telling people they can save money, even lots of money, is not the same as giving them that money or something they want that is worth that sort of money. They may be able to save enough money to send a kid to school for a whole year by using a solar cooker for a few months of the year but that will not necessarily persuade them to use it!
There are other intermediate technologies we are interested in but people are sceptical. We are at an early stage and there are people interested in hearing more and seeing more but that is no guarantee that they will take on any of them.
If this is the sort of thing you are interested in and would like to hear more, please feel free to contact me.
Regards
Simon