Selecting the right technology
Selecting the right technology
By Markus Krisetya
SALATIGA (JP): In the current foreseeable horizon of
development possibilities, technology appears to be one of the
most important factors of production. If properly selected and
implemented, technology can have positive and lasting effects for
a country's overall development agenda.
Many developing countries have championed this cause and have
rushed onto the technology-intensive development bandwagon under
the banners of highly optimistic and futuristic visionaries.
The results have often fallen short of the rhetoric that
underlies these movements. What then defines the critical success
factors of these technology-intensive development strategies?
It must be recognized that the field of development studies
and development planning takes place in a very uncertain
environment. While there are concrete goals, there are no
definitive plans that apply to all situations.
On one side, theorists struggle over the process of
conceptualizing different methodologies that have unproven
outcomes and on the other side practitioners experiment with
real-life dynamic situations without adequate tools.
One theory that works in one country may not work in another.
Plans that are effective in one area may have tenuous effects in
a different region. This dilemma points out the necessity to make
development planning a process that is highly contextual.
Theories and concepts that claim to address all the issues and
have the ability to outline the future should be approached with
great caution and suspicion.
Kenichi Ohmae's flying geese pattern has captured the
imagination of many people. His idea is that countries of the
Pacific Rim (Japan, the NIC's and most of the ASEAN countries)
are flying in the triangular formation of geese in their
differing levels of development.
Geese in the back can ultimately fly ahead of the formation
because the leader has set the direction. The reality as we see
it today is that some geese in the back are getting a little lost
in flight.
The same degree of prudence should be applied to the theory of
Kondratiev Waves. This theory claims to have plotted out the
course of history into predictable periods of recession and
expansion.
These waves or cycles include elements of the rise and fall of
hegemonic powers, demographic differences as well as predominant
technologies that shape a particular era. The seemingly lucid
nature of the future in this theory gives the impression that if
certain countries accurately time their strategy at the beginning
of a particular period of expansion; they can ride out a
bountiful wave of prosperity.
But this theory is only as good as one's hindsight. The waves
that have been plotted are part of history. None of the
proponents of this theory can agree where we are exactly in the
next Kondratiev Wave of the future.
So how does a country truly benefit from the use of technology
in development? First of all, technology must be understood as
something that can not be transported miraculously from one
country to another with the expectation that the new user can
reap the same benefits.
Technology, whether in the form of capital goods or in the
form of knowledge, does not exist in a vacuum. Inherent in
technology is an entire set of norms, values and laws that make
the technology work.
Therefore in a sense technology introduces social change as it
challenges preexisting social structures and creates new ones.
This implies that without the necessary social structures that
adapt to these requirements, technology will not be adapted.
These prerequisites extend from certain economic
infrastructures (capital, policies and markets) and certain
social infrastructures (skills embodied in labor and
organizations) which provide the necessary environment that is
conducive for technology to take root and have a lasting impact.
None of these requirements can be created instantaneously. They
are part of a long-term investment.
The second important aspect of the nature of technology is a
consequence of the above requirements. Because the
infrastructures are inherently long term in nature, it follows
that technology possesses this same characteristic. Actual
benefits of technology can not be expected in a short period of
time nor can we expect it have a lasting impact if it does.
With these characteristics in mind, it becomes clear that for
a country to embark on technology-intensive development
strategies the country is required to seriously look at their
immediate strengths and weaknesses.
A realistic perspective must replace the overly optimistic and
futuristic rhetoric. Countries must recognize and address
economic and social infrastructures to enable them to choose
appropriate technology applications in their development
strategy.
One particular development theory provides a specific
framework that is more appropriate than others when it comes to
applying technology to development.
This theory is called the Regulationist theory. There are two
components to this theory. The first, called a mode of
regulation, is the component that explains the social
relationships and institutions in society that define its
behavior and activity.
It defines the rules of the game. For instance, in the labor-
wage relationship the mode of regulation defines the organization
of labor, the agreed upon length and intensity of the workday,
conditions of employment and the distribution of direct and
indirect wages.
The second part is called a regime of accumulation. Briefly
this component describes how the social relationships and
institutions of the mode of regulation give rise to the way in
which distribution, exchange and consumption in a society works.
To expand a certain industry requires the expansion of
industries supplying intermediate inputs to the production
process as well as expansion of the demand for the output. The
two components are in no way static. They can evolve and adapt
but they are always inextricably linked with each other.
Every development theory has its weaknesses. But what makes
the Regulationist theory appealing is that in reality it is a
framework that allows for the local and historical context to be
incorporated into its specific applications.
It outlines the elements in the background of the development
process. It allows a more objective view of the relative success
and failures from the perspective of inherent characteristics
specific to each country in a period of time. As a result with
respect to the nature of technology, the Regulationist approach
becomes a very instructive way of planning for technology-
intensive development strategies.
The relative successes and failures of technology-intensive
development strategies become a complex interaction of the
elements outlined above.
Failures are often a result of the lack of attention to one or
more particular aspects of the equation. It could be a case of
too little capital, a failure in the mode of regulation in the
form of wages, the lack of an adequate pool of appropriate skills
or lack of demand in the market.
Because of the linkages and tight relationship of the
elements, a failure in one aspect can cause the collapse of the
entire strategy.
However, understood in the context of the uncertainty that
faces development planners, there is room for failure.
What becomes important is how quickly development planners can
recognize these problems and understand whether they constitute a
case of a bad choice of technology application or whether they
are endemic problems that can be correct in the long run.
The writer is a Master of Arts candidate in international
relations at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
at Syracuse University, United States.
By Markus Krisetya
SALATIGA (JP): In the current foreseeable horizon of
development possibilities, technology appears to be one of the
most important factors of production. If properly selected and
implemented, technology can have positive and lasting effects for
a country's overall development agenda.
Many developing countries have championed this cause and have
rushed onto the technology-intensive development bandwagon under
the banners of highly optimistic and futuristic visionaries.
The results have often fallen short of the rhetoric that
underlies these movements. What then defines the critical success
factors of these technology-intensive development strategies?
It must be recognized that the field of development studies
and development planning takes place in a very uncertain
environment. While there are concrete goals, there are no
definitive plans that apply to all situations.
On one side, theorists struggle over the process of
conceptualizing different methodologies that have unproven
outcomes and on the other side practitioners experiment with
real-life dynamic situations without adequate tools.
One theory that works in one country may not work in another.
Plans that are effective in one area may have tenuous effects in
a different region. This dilemma points out the necessity to make
development planning a process that is highly contextual.
Theories and concepts that claim to address all the issues and
have the ability to outline the future should be approached with
great caution and suspicion.
Kenichi Ohmae's flying geese pattern has captured the
imagination of many people. His idea is that countries of the
Pacific Rim (Japan, the NIC's and most of the ASEAN countries)
are flying in the triangular formation of geese in their
differing levels of development.
Geese in the back can ultimately fly ahead of the formation
because the leader has set the direction. The reality as we see
it today is that some geese in the back are getting a little lost
in flight.
The same degree of prudence should be applied to the theory of
Kondratiev Waves. This theory claims to have plotted out the
course of history into predictable periods of recession and
expansion.
These waves or cycles include elements of the rise and fall of
hegemonic powers, demographic differences as well as predominant
technologies that shape a particular era. The seemingly lucid
nature of the future in this theory gives the impression that if
certain countries accurately time their strategy at the beginning
of a particular period of expansion; they can ride out a
bountiful wave of prosperity.
But this theory is only as good as one's hindsight. The waves
that have been plotted are part of history. None of the
proponents of this theory can agree where we are exactly in the
next Kondratiev Wave of the future.
So how does a country truly benefit from the use of technology
in development? First of all, technology must be understood as
something that can not be transported miraculously from one
country to another with the expectation that the new user can
reap the same benefits.
Technology, whether in the form of capital goods or in the
form of knowledge, does not exist in a vacuum. Inherent in
technology is an entire set of norms, values and laws that make
the technology work.
Therefore in a sense technology introduces social change as it
challenges preexisting social structures and creates new ones.
This implies that without the necessary social structures that
adapt to these requirements, technology will not be adapted.
These prerequisites extend from certain economic
infrastructures (capital, policies and markets) and certain
social infrastructures (skills embodied in labor and
organizations) which provide the necessary environment that is
conducive for technology to take root and have a lasting impact.
None of these requirements can be created instantaneously. They
are part of a long-term investment.
The second important aspect of the nature of technology is a
consequence of the above requirements. Because the
infrastructures are inherently long term in nature, it follows
that technology possesses this same characteristic. Actual
benefits of technology can not be expected in a short period of
time nor can we expect it have a lasting impact if it does.
With these characteristics in mind, it becomes clear that for
a country to embark on technology-intensive development
strategies the country is required to seriously look at their
immediate strengths and weaknesses.
A realistic perspective must replace the overly optimistic and
futuristic rhetoric. Countries must recognize and address
economic and social infrastructures to enable them to choose
appropriate technology applications in their development
strategy.
One particular development theory provides a specific
framework that is more appropriate than others when it comes to
applying technology to development.
This theory is called the Regulationist theory. There are two
components to this theory. The first, called a mode of
regulation, is the component that explains the social
relationships and institutions in society that define its
behavior and activity.
It defines the rules of the game. For instance, in the labor-
wage relationship the mode of regulation defines the organization
of labor, the agreed upon length and intensity of the workday,
conditions of employment and the distribution of direct and
indirect wages.
The second part is called a regime of accumulation. Briefly
this component describes how the social relationships and
institutions of the mode of regulation give rise to the way in
which distribution, exchange and consumption in a society works.
To expand a certain industry requires the expansion of
industries supplying intermediate inputs to the production
process as well as expansion of the demand for the output. The
two components are in no way static. They can evolve and adapt
but they are always inextricably linked with each other.
Every development theory has its weaknesses. But what makes
the Regulationist theory appealing is that in reality it is a
framework that allows for the local and historical context to be
incorporated into its specific applications.
It outlines the elements in the background of the development
process. It allows a more objective view of the relative success
and failures from the perspective of inherent characteristics
specific to each country in a period of time. As a result with
respect to the nature of technology, the Regulationist approach
becomes a very instructive way of planning for technology-
intensive development strategies.
The relative successes and failures of technology-intensive
development strategies become a complex interaction of the
elements outlined above.
Failures are often a result of the lack of attention to one or
more particular aspects of the equation. It could be a case of
too little capital, a failure in the mode of regulation in the
form of wages, the lack of an adequate pool of appropriate skills
or lack of demand in the market.
Because of the linkages and tight relationship of the
elements, a failure in one aspect can cause the collapse of the
entire strategy.
However, understood in the context of the uncertainty that
faces development planners, there is room for failure.
What becomes important is how quickly development planners can
recognize these problems and understand whether they constitute a
case of a bad choice of technology application or whether they
are endemic problems that can be correct in the long run.
The writer is a Master of Arts candidate in international
relations at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
at Syracuse University, United States.