Message-ID: <199609300956.EAA30072@anditel.andinet.lat.net> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:33:40 -0500 From: Reinaldo Vicini <mailto:interext@ANDITEL.ANDINET.LAT.NET> Subject: Re: ideas of "appropriate technology" still respected? To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Dear friends:In my personal opinion, the idea of "appropiateness" as Schumacher points it out -I did read Schumacher's book years ago and is not available here- is that every country must define its own technology solutions according to its available factors of production and must be able to define its tailor-made solutions for its problems. Fine. That has been the seed of progress. However, my point is that countries, in order to succeed, must take actions in order to succeed internationally. And the idea of "appropiateness" where does it come from? I mean, who is going to decide what is appropiate for a country or not? I surely believe that individual choices are the ones that at the end do it. Not government. Just people.
Let me rephrase my opening statement of my original message. The concept of "appropriateness" can't take a country from underdeveloped to developed if we are willing to continue looking at it from merely a local perspective. The issue is, as Dr. Meadows points out "local" vs. "global". I believe underdeveloped countries can only achieve further stages of development when their particular factors of production, and more important, their people generate "global advantages".
The issue of "globality" unfortunely has been limited by the vision of its government. You can remember countries, as I mention before -including India and Brazil- who have tried to develop a national IT policy based on local markets with a strong policy directed by the Government. Different from countries like Singapore and South Korea, who built their capabilities to the "outside", in other words, building global solutions starting from local factors of productions.
This is not an original point. It has been stated by many authors I have read. I can't agree with the discourse about "global opression". I belong to a underdeveloped country, and I have a responsability to do my best for my country to succeed. After initial sympathy about protecting ourselves from the attack of foreign infludences, as Prebisch, Furtado, Dorfman and EVEN CARDOSO wrote in their times, I personally believe that such time has passed. Even Prebisch wrote that globalization had several steps. First an internal built-up, then a larger regional market to expand to -Latin american Free Trade Zone-, and then global. Our countries had their time to build their own infrastructures. However, this time has passed. Unfortunely, unproductive industries are afraid to go global, since they earn lots of money with the "local" game. Our country, and us -the people- can't AFFORD having "enfant industries". We can't *pay* the lack of productivity. Poor people in poor countries cannot pay other people's wealth through products. Job creation policies can't be sustained forever through the idea of maintaining a white collar work force. The best job creation policy is allowing businesses to work freely under terms given by productivity. As productivity increases, global advantages arise, allowing new job creation. I should say, rather, wealth creation and then, more taxes paid to improve general living conditions, more wealth to be spread through the people. It has happened everywhere. And surely will happen in Latin America if we want it.
Finally, Santiago. the world is not back and white. I agree that a country must seek a rapid GDP but with its restraints. Government must be limited to regulated the kind of abuses you mention. ñ can't agree, as a mere human being with the Lewis' perspective of "let's get rich quick and let our sons worry about the consequences of our development process". But I also disagree with the idea you point of "let's ignore progress and let our sons worry about it, or the idea that "mighty government will decide and provide". As a Latinamerican you sure should know better.
As other academics might agree, the first thing I was taught in my degree was to interpretate every author in his particular context. Schumacher, and Cardoso, Furtado, Galeano and Prebisch had a historical context. Now such context is different. Unfortunely, we must move on. Their basic ideas live with us.
Best Regards
Reinaldo Vicini mailto:interext@anditel.andinet.lat.net http://www.colomsat.net.co/rotarios.bogota
Como todas las cosas est½n llenas de mi alma emerges de las cosas, llena de alma mía. Mariposa de sueôo, te pareces a mi alma, y te pareces a la palabra melancolía _____________________________________________
Poema 15 - Fragmento Pablo Neruda 20 Poemas de amor y una cancin desesperada