Advertisement

Technological Decision-Making and National Development

Why Do So Many Technology Transfer Projects Encounter Serious Difficulties?
  • Joseph S. Szyliowicz
Part of the St Antony’s book series

Abstract

Only a short time ago technology was widely hailed as the means by which mankind could achieve a new level of well-being. Through its application, advanced countries would become post-industrial societies characterized by harmony and the rational management of problems; the Third World would achieve self-sustaining economic growth and modernize rapidly. Today such views are held by a minority and are generally regarded as reflecting a naive optimism. To apply modern technologies, let alone to master them, has proven to be a complex and expensive proposition. Often the results have been disappointing and the costs, direct and indirect, extremely high.

Keywords

Technology Transfer Steel Industry Multinational Corporation Foreign Technology Project Failure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    A detailed analysis of the available studies indicates that thousands of projects throughout the world have encountered problems of some sort; 3,500 had cost overruns. Peter W. G. Morris and George H. Hough, The Anatomy of Major Projects: A Study of the Reality of Project Management (New York: John Wiley, 1987), pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See, for example, O. Grine, ‘Transfer of technology in the Arab steel industry’, in A. B. Zahlan (ed.), Technology Transfer and Change in the Arab World (New York: Pergamon, 1978), pp. 451–70.Google Scholar
  3. See also W. O. Johnson, The Steel Industry of India (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968);Google Scholar
  4. P. Desai, The Bokaro Steel Plant (NY: American Elsevier, 1972);Google Scholar
  5. R. H. Chilicote, Spain’s Iron and Steel Industry (Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press, 1968);Google Scholar
  6. W. Baer, The Development of the Brazilian Steel Industry (Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    On the strengths and weaknesses of this methodology, see Harry Eckstein, ‘Case study and theory in political science’, in F. I. Greenstein and N. Polsby (eds). Handbook of Political Science, vol. 7 (Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1975) pp. 79–137.Google Scholar
  8. See also J. Feldman, Concorde and Dissent (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), pp. 165–70.Google Scholar
  9. 4.
    A. O. Hirschman, Development Projects Observed (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1967), p. 1.Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    Paul R. Schulman, Large- Scale Policy Making (New York: Elsevier, 1980).Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    Gerald M. Steinberg, ‘Comparing technological risks in large scale national projects’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 18, 1985, pp. 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 8.
    Peter Hall, Great Planning Disasters (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1980), p. 3.Google Scholar
  13. 9.
    Ibid., pp. 4–11; for a study which analyses the significance of this type of uncertainty in advanced industrialized countries see Yoshihiro Kogane (ed.), Changing Value Patterns And Their Impact On Economic Structure (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    Kathleen J. Murphy, Macroproject Development In The Third World (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1983), p. 19.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Another expert, however, concludes that iron and steel plants are highly complex technological systems, both to construct and to operate (Tugrul Atamer, ‘Choix des partenaires et modalités de transfert international de technologie’, Thèse pour le doctorat de 3ème cycle, Université des Sciences Sociales de Grenoble, 1980, p. 142).Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    E. J. Feldman, ‘Patterns of failure in government megaprojects: economics, politics, and participation in industrial democracies’, in Samuel P. Huntington and Joseph S. Nye Jr, Global Dilemmas (Boston, Mass.: The Center for International Affairs and University Press of America, 1985), passim; the quote is from p. 151.Google Scholar
  17. 21.
    Although there is no precise and accepted definition of ‘technology’ practically every expert in this field accepts a broad definition such as ‘any kind of practical know-how’ or ‘any set of standardized operations that yields predetermined results’ and would include, in addition to machines and tools of all kinds, methods, routines and procedures as well as patterns of organization and administration. I treat this and some of the following issues in my Technology and International Affairs (New York: Praeger, 1981). The definitions are taken from Bernard Gendron, Technology and The Human Condition (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977), pp. 22–3;Google Scholar
  18. and David M. Freeman, Technology and Society (Chicago: Markham 1974), pp. 5–9.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    See N. Bruce Hannay and R. E. McGinn, ‘The anatomy of modern technology: prolegomenon to an improved public policy for the social management of technology’, Daedalus, Winter 1980, pp. 25–53; Harold Linstone, Multiple Perspectives For Decision Making (New York: North Holland, 1984); T. Atamer, op. cit.Google Scholar
  20. 24.
    These elements are discussed by H. V. Perlmutter and T. Sagafi-Necad, International Technology Transfer (New York: Pergamon, 1981);Google Scholar
  21. see also UNCTAD, Guidelines for the Study of the Transfer of Technology (New York: United Nations, 1972), p. 15.Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    For a model of this process see S. N. Bar Zakay, ‘A technology transfer model’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1971, pp. 321–77; Dennis Goulet, The Cruel Choice (Washington, DC: IDRC, 1977) analyses the critical role of values in shaping outcomes.Google Scholar
  23. 27.
    Carl Dahlman and Larry Westphal, ‘The meaning of technological mastery in relation to transfer of technology’, in Howard Pack (ed.), Technology Transfer: New Issues, New Analyses (Philadelphia, Pa.: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1983), p. 14;Google Scholar
  24. see also Robert Stobaugh and L. Wells Jr, Technology Crossing Borders (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  25. 30.
    G. Ranis and G. Saxonhouse, ‘International and domestic determinants of technology choice in the less developed countries’, in B. G. Lucas and S. Freedman (eds), Technology Choice and Change in Developing Countries: Internal and External Constraints (Dublin: Tycooly International, 1983), pp. 7–27.Google Scholar
  26. 32.
    My concern with placing this case in a larger theoretical framework requires that I make an effort to be conceptually precise and consistent. Accordingly it is appropriate to specify the key concepts that I shall be using. To begin with, I view the state as that set of institutions (and the persons who man them) which integrates the diverse elements of society and defines the structure of power within a given territory. For stylistic reasons, I shall sometimes use the term ‘country’ to refer to a specific state. I shall use the term ‘social core group’ to refer to those who occupy elite positions within the state institutions. The government comprises the formal policy-making positions and the persons who occupy them. I shall refer to these officials as ‘government leaders’. When discussing the network of activities, transactions and flows related to the ‘authoritative allocation of values’ (to use David Easton’s well-known formulation), I shall use the term ‘political system’. I shall differentiate among political systems on the basis of ‘regime type’ (democratic, authoritarian, military, etc.). For a useful introduction to the contemporary debate over the state and its role, see G. Almond, ‘The return of the state’, and E. Nordlinger, T. J. Lowi and S. Fabbrini, ‘The return of the state: critiques’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 853–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 34.
    F. Stewart, ‘Facilitating indigenous technical change in Third World countries’ in Martin Fransman and Kenneth King, Technological Capabilities in the Third World (London: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 41.
    For a useful introduction to this literature see R. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1981), pp. 296–312.Google Scholar
  29. 43.
    See N. Caiden and A. Wildavski, Planning and Budgeting in Poor Countries (New York: John Wiley, 1974).Google Scholar
  30. 44.
    Francisco Sagasti, Science and Technology for Development: Main Comparative Report on the STPI Project (Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Center, 1978).Google Scholar
  31. 47.
    F. Sagasti, Technology, Planning and Self Reliant Development (New York: Praeger, 1979), pp. 19 ff.Google Scholar
  32. 49.
    For a useful summary of the state of our knowledge, with particular reference to the literature dealing with Latin America, see John D. Martz, Politics and Petroleum in Ecuador (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1987), pp. 7 ff.; see also B. G. Peters, J. C. Doughtie and M. K. McCulloch, ‘Types of democratic systems and types of public policies’, Comparative Politics, April 1977, pp. 327–55, who demonstrate that the nature of policy outputs is related to the form of the policy process.Google Scholar
  33. 50.
    For an elaboration of this concept see S. Keller, Beyond The Ruling Class (NY: Random House, 1963).Google Scholar
  34. 51.
    P. G. Roeder, Two Tiers of Soviet Policy Making, paper presented to the International Studies Annual Convention, Washington, DC, 1987, p. 21.Google Scholar
  35. 52.
    Richard Zeckhauser and Elmer Schaefer, ‘Public policy and normative economic theory’, in R. A. Bauer and K. J. Gergen (eds), The Study of Policy Formation (New York: Free Press, 1968), pp. 27–101.Google Scholar
  36. 53.
    Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: Free Press, 1957) pp. xxiii–xxvii.Google Scholar
  37. 54.
    James G. March and H. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley, 1958);Google Scholar
  38. Richard M. Cyert and James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963).Google Scholar
  39. 55.
    Charles E. Lindblom, ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review, 19 (1959), pp. 79–88. See also his The Intelligence of Democracy (New York: Free Press, 1965) and The Policy Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 57.
    G. Allison, Essence of Decision (Boston Mass.: Little Brown, 1971), p. 2.Google Scholar
  41. 60.
    M. Brecher, Decisions in Israels Foreign Policy (London: Oxford University Press, 1974);Google Scholar
  42. J. Steinbrunner, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  43. 61.
    Janice G. Stein and Raymond Tanter, Rational Decision-Making: Israels Security Choices, 1967 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  44. 62.
    David Braybrooke and Charles E. Lindblom, A Strategy of Decision (New York: Free Press, 1963), p. 78.Google Scholar
  45. 63.
    Richard Barke, Science, Technology and Public Policy (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1986), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
  46. 64.
    Robert F. Baker, R. M. Michaels and E. S. Preston, Public Policy Development: Linking the Technical and Political Processes (New York: John Wiley, 1975), p. 256.Google Scholar
  47. 66.
    These categories overlap somewhat with Linstone’s dimensions (design and impact are ‘technical’, management incorporates the organizational and personal), but they represent only elements to be studied, not ‘lenses’ of analysis as well. The framework was originally elaborated and applied in R. Rycroft and J. Szyliowicz, Decision Making In A Technological Environment: The Case of The Aswan High Dam (Boston, Mass.: Intercollegiate Case Clearing House, 1980), and subsequently in ‘The case of the Aswan Dam’, World Politics, October 1980, pp. 36–61.Google Scholar
  48. 68.
    J. D. Bryce, Industrial Development (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), p. 106.Google Scholar
  49. 69.
    See, for example, F. Stewart, Technology and Underdevelopment (London: Macmillan, 1978), D. Morawetz, ‘Employment implications of industrialization in developing countries: a survey’, Economic Journal, 1974, pp. 491–542,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. J. Enos, ‘The choice of technique vs the choice of beneficiary: what the Third World chooses’, in F. Stewart and J. James, The Economics of New Technology in Developing Countries (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1982), pp. 69–82.Google Scholar
  51. 80.
    I.M.D. Little and J. A. Mirrlees, Manual of Industrial Project Analysis in Developing Countries, Volume II, Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (Paris: OECD, 1969);Google Scholar
  52. P.S. Dasgupta, S. A. Marglin and A. K. Sen, Guidelines for Project Evaluation (New York: United Nations, 1972);Google Scholar
  53. L. Squire and H. G. van der Tak, Economic Analysis of Projects (Washington, DC: World Bank Research Publication, 1975);Google Scholar
  54. Ministry of Overseas Development, A Guide to the Economic Appraisal of Projects in Developing Countries (London: HMSO, 1977); Evaluation Handbook (Washington, DC: USAID, 1972).Google Scholar
  55. 81.
    O. Murelius, An Institutional Approach to Project Analysis in Developing Countries (Paris: Development Centre, OECD, 1981).Google Scholar
  56. 82.
    H. Schwartz and R. Berney, Social and Economic Dimensions of Project Evaluation (Washington, DC: InterAmerican Development Bank, 1977), p. 6.Google Scholar
  57. 83.
    For a balanced and systematic exploration of the role of cost utility and related techniques in policy decisions, and an overview of these techniques, see Michael Carley, Rational Techniques in Policy Analysis (London: Heinemann Educational, 1980).Google Scholar
  58. 86.
    See Peter Self, Econocrats and the Policy Process (London: Macmillan, 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 88.
    See, for example, Murelius, op. cit., p. 9. For a discussion of the approaches and techniques that AID and the World Bank use in their project evaluations, see H. M. Selim, Development Assistance Policies and the Performance of Aid Agencies (London: Macmillan, 1983), pp. 52–53, 350–357.Google Scholar
  60. 89.
    For a detailed analysis of how managerial deficiencies have adversely affected a number of projects in Greece, see S. M. Theopanides, ‘Project planning and implementation in Greece’, in W. D. Cook and T. E. Kuhn, Planning Processes in Developing Countries: Techniques and Achievements (New York: North Holland, 1982), pp. 70–3.Google Scholar
  61. 91.
    Cited in D. A. Rondinelli, Planning Development Projects (Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1977), p. 3.Google Scholar
  62. 103.
    M. S. Grindle (ed.), Politics and Policy Implementation in the Third World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Joseph S. Szyliowicz 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph S. Szyliowicz
    • 1
  1. 1.Greenwood VillageUSA

Personalised recommendations