Crossing the divide: - Maastricht University

Quite soon, however, the model proved to be dead wrong. Experiences in the early
1950s showed that “the technical knowledge, required in tropical countries, was not
available in the West, or at least not ready for its application in other than Western
conditions” (Ponsioen 1968: 60). Nevertheless, the technology transfer model
continued to inspire aid or cooperation policies for decades to come. A model that
was outdated at the outset was to inspire generations of policymakers, scientists
and technologists, be they diplomats of the 1940s, industrial engineers in the 1950s,
or biotechnologists in the 21st century. Was Claude Alvares, the Indian writer with a
deep mistrust of the ‘modern knowledge industry’ right, when he compared science
with toothpaste, and dismissed them both as ‘irrelevant to life’?
Why recount this early history? Because it shows how scientists and technologists
have been involved from the very start in the shaping of official development aid or
technical assistance: they had a stake in it (as unemployed experts in Europe) and
they helped shape its rationale or theory (as in Rostow’s work). Both the older
history (the creation of institutes and universities in the 19 th Century) and the more
recent one just mentioned, need to be understood before a structured dialogue can
take place.
Scientific interest has therefore closely interacted with the rationale for technical
assistance. Rostow’s modernisation theory provided a basis for technology transfer,
and made for a very special type of donor support that suited particular interests.
Claude Alvares (1997: 294) has attacked these unholy alliances between science
and the state, as imposing an element of Western culture over poor countries.
I, however, do not subscribe to a conspiracy theory, which argues that scientists
from developed countries only saw it as being in their interest to provide this type of
aid. Aid has always had too many interests or motivations associated with it to just
link it to one interest group.
I would point out, however, that a close relation has existed between science and
development aid from the very start in the late 1940s, and that a theoretical model
was adopted in which science was accorded a special place in the development
process. The model continued to be operative, even though its faults soon became
evident. In other words: Northern scientists had a significant role in the setting of
developmental priorities, especially in the area of scientific and technological
cooperation. Other actors were poorly represented in the agenda setting. A policy
dialogue, which seriously involved actors from the South, was slow in the coming.
Where do we stand now? The Human Development Report argues “Technology
networks are transforming the traditional map of development, expanding people’s
horizons and creating the potential to realise in a decade progress that required
generations in the past”. The report links technological transformation to
globalisation and concludes that together they are creating a new paradigm: the
network age (UNDP 2001: 27). Whose networks?