For long, the idea of technology transfer dominated the development discourse. It was assumed that modern industrial technology could be transferred from the North to benefit the South. At the same time, local or traditional technology was generally undervalued. The transfer of technology often led to a mechanism where it sustained and promoted the interests of dominant social groups who had the capacity to access, use and maintain those technologies (Dickson 1974). In a previous post, we have discussed how many of the Safe Water Options (SWOs) installed in response to the arsenic crisis have been distributed to influential or well-connected families. So-called community-based SWOs are in reality privately used by the rural elite. Beyond the direct issue of access to safe water, the impacts could be far reaching.

In the past, the monopoly position of shallow tube-well owners provided leverage to gain political support before local elections. The heightened political status would then, in turn, reinforce their capacity to influence public services in their favour (Hartmann & Boyce 1983). If we are not careful, history might be repeating itself with the introduction of SWOs today. We would therefore like to celebrate the old concept of Appropriate Technology (Reddy 1975). It is as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. In the video, Amulya Reddy, one of the founders of the movement, gives a useful definition.

References and further readings

• Dickson, D. 1974. Alternative technology and the politics of technical change. Fontana, London.
• Reddy, A.K.N. 1975. Alternative technology: A viewpoint from india. Social Studies of Science, 5(3): 331-342
• Hartmann, B. & Boyce, J.K. 1983. A quiet violence: View from a bangladesh village. Dhaka: University Press.
• Tools of Change: Introduction Into Appropriate Technology. 1978. [videocassette]. Teldok Film Production.