Past Experience

Transfer of science and technology has taken place throughout history. The Greek-Egypt-Indo-China exchange, the transfer of mathematics and ancient works from Middle East to Europe, and the transfer of British and European languages and sciences to Asia, Africa, and Native America are three major historical transfers of science and technology.

Since the mid 20th century, technology transfer means the technological aid granted by developed countries to developing countries. Technology transfer failed in most Asian and African countries, with an exception of the East Asian countries. Channing Arndt on his essay Technical Co-operation notes "in the early 1990s, the world was at least perceived to be completely devoid of successful TC projects on which future efforts could be modelled."[FAD 168] From the various reports analysing the causes for failures, four main reasons stand out:

1. Lack of "human and physical capacity" needed for proper use of technology
2. Considering the recipients' interests as secondary
3. Transfer of inappropriate technology.
4. Lack of community consultation, education and input.

1. Lack of "human and physical capacity":

Introducing scientific technology without proper human and physical infrastructure has resulted in failures. During the early 20th century when backward Russia attempted to rapidly modernize by adapting American technologies, the lack of social and physical infrastructure caused serious setbacks. The historian Hughes cites an observer reporting, "fleets of disabled tractors dotted the landscape. Spare parts were short and repair work poor"[HUGHES, 275]. Hughes points out the difficulty of not having the equivalent system or condition for tractors to be used effectively. Further Hughes notes [259]:

"The American engineers and management experts who played a leading role in transferring technology to the Soviet Union in the 1920s came back with stories of enthusiastic, frantic, and harsh efforts to install the Taylor system, punctuated with disastrous failures. That peasants-become-industrial-workers did not arrive at work on time because they had no clocks in their homes suggests the magnitude and depth of the problem of technology transfer. "

Technology transfer transformed the backward Russia into an industrial giant, at tremendous humanitarian cost. It is ironic however that Russia is rebuilding and modernizing yet again.

Another illustration of failure of not having the proper system to use technological aid is noted by Channing Arndt. In comparing the rapid rebuilding of Western Europe after World War II with the failure of other developing communities to do the same, he identifies the lack of "human and institutional capacity" as the main reason. I will extend that the aims and systems of the donor and receiver were socially, technologically, and historically similar, thus the aid was more effective. In contrast, the conditions of Indian, African, and other communities are unique.

If recipients' interest is secondary, then technology transfer looses its aim and focus. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviets imposed their interests in communities, disguised as aid. Susan George, an influential social activist, uses the following quote from Mr. Coffin, Deputy Administrator of USAID during 60's to illustrate how donors' placed their interest ahead of the recipient:[47]

"Our basic, broadest goal is a long range political one. It is not development for the sake of sheer development…The problem is…to evaluate the manner in which the program can make the greatest contribution to the totality of U.S. interests."

Even today donors place their economic interest above humanitarian concerns in providing technological transfer. For instance, Japan offers television stations, hospital equipment, and other products so as to electronically "hook" the developing community as consumers.

Whenever the interest of the recipient is secondary, the technology transfer is "supply driven"[FAD 159]. "Donors conceive, design, and implement projects with too little input from recipients…, At the same time, the supply driven character of technology cooperation implies that projects often address low priority needs from the recipient country's perspective." [FAD 159]

Transfer of inappropriate technology causes harm to the recipient. "Technological enthusiasm" and arbitrary assertion that most advanced technology is the most appropriate, contribute to the selecting inappropriate technology.

Also, inappropriate technology takes place when receipts are used as testing grounds or dumping grounds of equipments. Mechanization is not always economical where labour is abundant, and where redirection and retraining are costly or impossible.

Lack of community education, consultation, and input for technological transfer projects contributes to project failures. Channing Arndt summarizes the issues as:[160]