Message-ID: <3250088D.6101@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:51:09 +0000 From: Richard Flyer <mailto:rflyer@EARTHLINK.NET> Subject: Re: "Appropriate technology" still useful? To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
I live in a "poor" inner-city area of San Diego, California, USA. You may consider it the "South" inside the "North."For many years I directed a community-organization promoting the type of business enterprise development that dealt head-on with the contradiction Mr. Nyland makes in the passage below.
William Nylen said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At a time when profit-driven production attends the "needs" of about 20-30% of Latin America's population, sending a good percentage of the profits to international banks and corporations and leaving the rest of the country in abject and absolute poverty, PLEASE don't try to pretend that this is what "Appropriate technology" means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In my neighborhood, it used to be resident/community-owned (the homes and the businesses).
We have 13% home ownership and 15% of the residents own their own businessess. As a result of this dynamic, capital is leaving from our local area and into the regional and national economy. It is a micro example of the same principle discussed above whereby profits flow outwards from the "periphery" to the "economic centers.
The problem of poverty in my area is the lack of capital recyling and what I believe economists call the "number of turns" of capital to have a healthy economy.
Our stategy was a mix of entrepreneurship and social capital/civil society building simultaneously.
I bring this up to show that the principle of capital flight has to do with power relationships whether within a "developed" country like the USA or bewteen countries. The solution to this dynamic is not to get on the "economic globalization" bandwagon. There is evidence (recent 6 UN conferences) that this mentality of competition leads to further poverty and economic segragation.
William Nylen continued: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The kinds of development programs that Schumacher would have liked ("as if people mattered") are the kinds of things Joaquim is describing. You should not dismiss them out of some myopic devotion to free market ideology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Schumacher developed his "Small is Beautiful" concepts in part after visiting Dr. Ariyaratne and the world class model of the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement (Sri Lanka). I am not saying this movement is perfect, but if you combine the social capital/civil society/sustainable development formation of the Sarvodaya Movement with the Microenterprise spirit of the Grameen Bank Movement and finally the alternative banking/business development model of the Mondragon Movement I think we have a real sound alternative to what is being discussed here.
The Sarvodaya movement is an example of a non traditional development process that has a balanced approach and is not simply "market" driven.
I challenge those in this particular thread to check these web sites:
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/edfirst/JReed/sarvodaya/pamphlet1.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~rflyer/sarvusaarticles.html
I have been involved in applying these ideas to my own community for fifteen years. I would like your feedback.
Peace,
Richard Flyer