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.