Message-ID: <lPxbXAAJYlnzEwZj@entebbe.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:38:49 +0100 From: cherbert <mailto:cherbert@ENTEBBE.DEMON.CO.UK> Subject: Re: average American's perception of the US role in the 1st To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Dawit Angelo writes: >Note also that, ownership of the technology we are supposed to
>transfer constitutes part of the business assets chunk.
>
>How did it go to the hands of these few families?
The Gross Profits of 8 major MNCs equals the Gross National Product of the 50 poorest nations according to World Development movement. This puts the MAI discussions (elsewhere on this list) a major potential step further in the wrong direction, increasing the power and legal rights of business above those of the nation state, and ultimately the world.Reducing the gross inequalities of wealth distribution is a major issue - the current systems simply continue to exacerbate this problem within and between countries. One fifth of the world's population currently lives in absolute poverty, and unless there is a change of policy and more importantly a change of outlook this number is only set to rise.
> As I mentioned earlier, thanks to
>the advent of the info age, the common man is more empowered than
>ever to undertake such a collective action of global magnitude. May
>be the info age is here to save us and bring us back to our senses in
>the privacy of our studies
Well, a few of us. Inequalities in distribution of wealth includes inequalities in distribution of knowledge, education, technology, etc. They are all forms of wealth.>If we are to confine our discussion to the bounds of ''indigenous'' and
>''freeware'' technology, that is fine. But why? when there is a better
>one? Beside, what happened to all that deafening ''appropraite''
>technology rehthoric(?) that implied what ever appropraite technology
>around.
Using Uganda, the country I do understand something about. Their current only power source is the hydroelectric dam at the mouth of the Nile just outside of Jinga. That's very sustainable environmentally and economically - but doesn't at present produce enough power for the country. The company that was extending this dam fell down on the job amidst many accusations and recriminations. So yes, you are right that we should be looking at the best technology - but where there is no power - there are restrictions of use. So it is and/both - getting this dam completed and all the country connected is going to take a long time without some of the local difficulties (which include rebels coming in from the Sudan and knocking out the power lines that do exist). Meantime using hand powered tools is improving the situation for local people, giving them an opportunity to develop their skills and earn their livelihood.>Also, one needs to note that this is another serious matter the
>recipient world vehemently resents simply as an insult to its
>intelligence. The popular view is that given the funds, any body can do
>that. Local management etc. experise can handle the small village
>projects and there is no need for a well paid development crusader.
Many projects I visited in Uganda are managed locally, and many aid organisations are moving to locally managed project development and there is a growth in grass roots projects, microfinancing etc. Not all development crusaders are well paid. Those who live as ex-pats for many years often could not transfer back to the job or property markets of the west.
>In a related note, in the face of mounting resentment, it rather seems
>that there is little time to waste with out addressing the vital issues of
>economic eneqality
I agree - but just throwing money at all of the world's problems wouldn't solve them either. It has to be part of a much wider picture, including cutting consumption, technology, science and information transfer, and developing a sustainable life style for all the world's peoples. Whilst working on the big picture, small is beautiful too.
chebert