Message-ID: <2347.000102@acnet.net> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 08:20:59 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds <mailto:dmhinds@acnet.net> Subject: Re: one-way traffic? To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Hello Rose,Saturday, January 01, 2000, 1:35:27 PM, you wrote:
RM> ... I'm new and a couple of questions have just reared their ... RM> heads ..:
RM> Devel-l is devoted to the transfer of technology from (presumably) RM> technologically "developed" countries/minds/whatever to those who RM> should be avid for same (even if they might give little evidence RM> of such hunger).
While I am not a frequent contributor to devel-l myself (in spite of having been unwillingly involved in a gross digression recently), I *have* been involved in projects here that received aid that was solicited from and provided by VITA, the organization responsible for devel-l.
VITA stands for "Volunteers in Technical Assistance" and I think it would be good to take a look at their website: http://www.vita.org/
This is all it says on that page (and I think it speaks for itself):
Volunteers in Technical Assistance A Private, Non-Profit Organization
For four decades VITA has defined its mission as empowering the poor in developing countries to manage their own development. Its varied activities and services are designed for this mission.
Their publications include plans for simple hand, water or wind machines that can be made from materials locally available.
Since the project I was involved in required defining the waste water treatment needs a middle sized (150.000) city in terms of the existing infrastructure and the various technological alternatives available, the technology needed was more complex. (I had been asked by the city councilman responsible for health, sanitation and ecology to charge of the research end of the project).
In order to help us understand the options, VITA had 9 waste water engineers communicating with us constantly in response to our requests for information. Texts as were as informed opinions were sent on the subject, and the technological issue was successfully resolved, at no cost to the municipality.
The technology best suited to the task proved to be of European origin and was under patent, but I discovered independently that further research work had been done at Mexico's National University (the one currently "on strike"), and the (now Mexican) technology had been then licensed to a number of Mexican firms (each had a somewhat different variation) and one of them proved to be the best option.
RM> Question 1: Who benefits?
I think what I just stated above answers that. Additionally, a lot of devel-l subscribers (including myself) are *not* located in a "(presumably) technologically "developed" country" and *are* motivated by a desire to help resolve exiting local problems in the areas where we reside, rather than push anyone else's "tech wares".
Speaking for myself and CeDeCoR, if there's no benefit in favor of the local population (first and foremost), we won't get involved. Unfortunately, many projects - including many of those generated by indigenous interests, do *not* benefit those who need help most.
We ourselves recognize this and have consistently and vocally pointed this out (here where we are and elsewhere). More importantly, we have developed a set of criteria that serves to define what we will and will not do and in in what way, precisely in order to avoid the kinds of abuses that I believe you have in mind, that can come from both internal and external sources. (We are definitely *not* alien to these problems).
We also believe that these guidelines may be useful to others who share our concerns, although it's unwise o generalize much without knowing more about the problem at hand. The best course or courses of action can and do vary with the situation.
RM> Question 2: What do these "under-developed" (read RM> "mis-understood"?) cultures have to offer us in return for our RM> overwhelming generosity?
Whatever "understanding" is involved is based on local perceptions that are either shared by all parties concerned or no project results.
RM> The generally accepted answer to this question is "Well, access to RM> and eventual ownership of their natural resources, of course."
Mexico is a good example to that supposition and the following facts deserve emphasis:
1).- Land reform laws exist that limit the amount of land an individual or corporate entity can "own" (possess). This also serves to maintain the cost of land within the limits that using it would bring, since it impedes the use of land as a means of speculation (land can't be hoarded).
This view obviously takes into account the fact that land is a finite commodity, so that that if one person has an excess, another will likely not have any.
Many natural resources are also considered be part of the nations patrimony. Oil is a case in point, and those who think that Mexico's oil will be privatized are sadly mistaken. The constitution prohibits this and no politician that suggested this would be elected, or tolerated if already in office. (I have been here 26 years and have no doubt of this).
RM> Is there another answer? Would we get another answer if we RM> re-phrased the question?
You would get other answers if you were closer to the problem. You can take that as an invitation, if you like (to visit, not engage in polemics).
Douglas Hinds
Director Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a Mexican non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico mailto:dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net,