International Organizations MBA 2005/061

University of Geneva

Social EntrepreneurshipProfessor Maximilian Martin

ROLE AND IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY IN DISPLACING THE POSSIBILITY FRONTIER FOR SOCIAL CHANGE

A Thematic Exercise by Nadejda Loumbeva2 and Inderpreet Chawla3

1 The International Organizations MBA programme at the University of Geneva is a unique program with a focus on social entrepreneurship and corporate and social responsibility. It is centred on the enabling of partnerships among businesses/corporations, international organizations, governments and non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations.2 Nadejda Loumbeva is a Psychologist with a postgraduate degree and work experience in Human-Computer Interaction with Ergonomics. She is originally from Bulgaria and has studied and worked in the UK for five years. She holds an International Organizations MBA from the University of Geneva. Nadejda can be contacted at nadejda_loumbeva@yahoo.co.uk. 3 Inderpreet Chawla is an Engineer and has worked in the telecommunications technology sector for six years, mostly in India and the US. He is originally from India and also holds an International Organizations MBA from the University of Geneva. Inderpreet can be contacted at inderpreet.chawla@gmail.com.

1

INTRODUCTIONThis paper attempts a perspective into the role and impact of technology in displacing the

production possibility frontier of goods and services for social change. In doing so, the paper

examines the issue as it has been occurring and could likely occur in mostly developing

societies.

In order for the thematic exercise that this paper attempts to conduct to be most useful to

social entrepreneurs and socially responsible organizations, the paper adopts the following

two-part structure:

In Part 1, the paper examines the positive role of new technologies, looking at the positive

developments that technology has brought about and could potentially bring into mostly

developing societies. In doing so, we set out to evaluate whether technology has been of

value and what the magnitude of this value has been. By a way of an intellectual inquiry

supported by case studies, we have here attempted to inform the social entrepreneurs and

socially responsible organizations about the factors that make introduction of new

technologies successful in achieving their intended positive impacts, thereby guiding them

when they are looking to introduce novel technologies into developing societies in order to

improve social conditions.

In Part 2, the paper centres on the unintended negative impacts new technologies could have

on developing societies. In doing so, we look at any risks there could be in relation

to introducing new technologies, risks that should be responsibly and effectively managed in

order to preserve these societies. We aim, by discussing a few cases, to arrive at the

rudiments of a framework to guide social entrepreneurs and socially responsible

organizations whenever they embark on diffusing social innovations. In this way, social

entrepreneurs and socially responsible organizations can minimize any risks and maximize

any benefits brought about by the new technology.

In concluding this thematic exercise, we emphasize the importance of new technologies to

developing societies, in the meantime raising awareness of the implications for development

2

that these technologies have. Any new technology can have far-reaching effects on a society,

which can be either exuberantly positive, or pervasively negative, or both. Far reaching

positive effects of a technology are usually found when appropriate technology is invested

within the lower levels4 of a still developing society. Far reaching negative effects of a

technology are usually found when technology that is too advanced and therefore

inappropriate is invested usually within the higher levels5 of a developing society.

Introducing new technologies into developing societies is not and should not be approached

as a straightforward exercise. Rather, it should be seen as one of informed social

responsibility from the part of social entrepreneurs and responsibly competing businesses

and organizations.

PART 1

IS TECHNOLOGY BENEFICIAL TO DEVELOPING SOCIETIES?The fundamental idea we would like to present in this part of the paper is the following:

A technology can have a profoundly positive impact on the lives of the peoples and their

societies, in the developing or in the developed countries, when it addresses a particular need

of these peoples in a way or ways that are compatible with the socio-cultural and economic

context of the beneficiaries.

4 By ‘lower level’ within any (and, in this case, developing) society we mean the basic level of societal existence associated with productivity and carried out by individual societal ‘units’, well understood in their material expression. See Solo, R., (2001), ‘Capacity to assimilate an advanced technology’, American Economic Review, Vol. 56, issue 2, pp 91-98.5 By ‘higher level’ within any (and, in this case, developing) society we mean the level of interconnectedness within a society where individual ’units’ form a culture as a way to enable and fulfil communication and meaning, on top of and in order to sustain and advance productivity.

3

Outline to Part 1

There are various elements to the above statement that, we believe, the reader should

understand in order to fully comprehend it. We intend to bring these elements forth through a

series of arguments in an intellectual inquiry that will take the following structure over the

course of the next few sections: firstly, we discuss technology and human evolution – how

technology has evolved along with the evolution of humans and societies while making a

point that different societies are at different stages of this evolution; secondly, we discuss

different levels of technologies – the notions of low, intermediate and high technology, and

offer some examples to establish context; thirdly, we discuss appropriate technologies – in

this section we bring thus far discussed aspects together and explain that a technology can

make maximum possible impact on its beneficiaries only if it is appropriate for their socio-

economic context; finally, we conclude this first part of the paper by pointing out that

introducing technologies in developing countries can lead to potential risks and unintended,

albeit avoidable, impacts on those countries and their societies.

Technology and Human evolution

The history of technology is at least as old as humanity itself. Since times immemorial,

human beings have continuously endeavoured to look for ways to improve their life situation

and technology has helped them develop knowledge, tools and means to do so. The earliest

technologies converted readily available natural resources (such as rock, wood and other

vegetation, bone and other animal by-products) into simple tools6. Than came the fire, the

wheel (and more recently the Internet) – revolutionary technological milestones in human

evolution. At a fundamental level, technology has helped humans to control their

environment and best put to use the resources at hand to meet their needs. As the needs of

the human beings evolved, so did the technologies that brought forth ways and means to

meet those needs more efficiently and effectively. As much as the humans shaped the

evolution of technology, it shaped the evolution of human societies as well. However, the

6 “History of Technology” - Wikipedia4

pace of this evolution – of human societies and of technology - has not been the same

through the course of history and across different civilizations around the world. Particularly

in the past few centuries, technology has evolved at a frantic pace, more so in the West than

in the East. While societies in a number of developing countries largely spent their energies

and efforts in feeding themselves, the Western countries developed advanced technologies,

for e.g. forging of steel, which made the industrial revolution possible and transformed them

from agrarian to industrial societies. Technology also enabled the West to colonize other

countries in the East7, widening the already existing inequities and creating new ones.

While the 20th century witnessed decolonization of these countries, most of them ushered

into freedom only to be marred by cross cutting problems like corrupt political and policy

making structures, weak formal institutions, poor services infrastructure, fragile economies,

and unfortunately many more8. As a result, large populations in these countries still live in

extremely difficult circumstances and struggle to meet their basic needs in ways that have

not changed much over the centuries.

The question than becomes – Is it possible to introduce new technologies in the developing

countries and create a positive impact on the life situations of people in these countries?

Acknowledging that the societies in the developing countries are at a completely different

stage of development and evolution as compared to those in developed countries, the task of

answering this question becomes complex. We now explore some more concepts related to

technology in order to arrive at a useful answer to our question.

Low, Intermediate and High Technology

The past two centuries have seen tremendous rise in innovation of technology that has

fuelled unprecedented economic growth resulting in robust economies in the Western

countries. Such rise in technological innovation also resulted in quick adaptation of old

technologies while people embraced new ones, there by giving birth to notions of different

7 “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared Diamond8 “List of Core Problems in Developing countries” compiled by National Centre of Competence in Research North-South

5

classifications of levels of technology – low, intermediate and high technology. We believe

it will be worthwhile for our inquiry to understand the meaning behind these terms. A low

technology is generally characterized by low cost, low level of complexity and low level of

skill needed in order to use it. A hand constructed and operated milling equipment intended

to grind grain is an example of low technology. Full Belly Project is a non-profit

organization that introduced one such low technology tool called the Malian Peanut Sheller

in Uganda. The Sheller, whose founder Jock Brandis got the idea while travelling in Africa,

enables the local populations to create sustainable livelihoods by shelling peanuts, an

extremely important crop for a developing country like Uganda.

Intermediate technology is a technology meant for infrastructure capital and is at least an

order of magnitude more expensive than that prevalent in a developing country but still

cheaper than in a developed country9. It enables the poor people to work their way out of

poverty by providing tools that can help them work with fewer resources and increased

productivity. KickStart, previously known as ApproTec, is a social entrepreneurship venture

that provides such kinds of technologies to the poor in Kenya and other developing

countries. KickStart provides the locals with Micro-irrigation, Cooking oil and Building

technologies that enable them to pursue small scale farming and businesses, thereby

empowering them to get out of poverty.

Lastly, high technology is a term that is more prevalent in the modern societies and is

characterized by the kind of technology that results out of extensive research, is costly

(compared to low, and intermediate technologies) and requires high level of skills as it

enables the user to accomplish highly complex tasks with relative ease and high level of

productivity. A great deal of knowledge and information are keys to the utility of such

technologies. High technology is ubiquitous in developed countries and it now very much

defines the nature and lifestyle of Western societies. Biotechnology and Alternative Energy

are examples of high technology. A solar panel powered electric supply is an example of a

9 Definition of Intermediate Technology - Wikipedia6

high technology. This is what Fabio Rosa, a Brazilian Social Entrepreneur, employed when

he developed low cost rural electrification models to provide electricity to rural parts of

Brazil that were outside the network of an electric grid.

So far, we have posited that evolution of societies and technologies go hand in hand. While

the advanced technologies enabled the Western countries to surge ahead on the path of

economic development, it also resulted in a tremendous sociological evolution of the

societies in the West. The question than becomes – What makes a technology appropriate for

the developing countries? Is it that low technologies are more appropriate than high

technologies? We move on to the next section to dig deeper.

Appropriate technology

A technology being used either in a developing or a developed country can maximize its

intended impacts in the most efficient and effective manner only when it is completely

compatible with the context in which it is introduced. By context, we point to the

environment, culture, and socio economic situation of the receiving population. As we

illustrated in the previous sections that developing countries are characterized by a set of

core problems that are common across them. Yet, each country and society is different in its

own right with regards to the culture, the values and beliefs, the socio economic situation

and the resources available to it. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that the societies

in the developing countries are at a different stage of sociological evolution and economic

development as compared to those in the developed countries. Therefore, a technology that

is appropriate for a developing country is the one that has been designed and introduced after

a thorough analysis of the specific context of the recipient societies and thereby successfully

accommodates the above mentioned factors.

The concept of “Appropriate Technology” has been derived from the works of the economist

E.F. Schumacher, a big proponent of the fact that the technologies which involve local

peoples and communities with a consideration of their situation can create sustainable

economic growth in developing countries. With this background it is important to reiterate 7

the point that the underlying purpose of technology is to help, enable, and empower a society

to meet its needs in an effective, efficient, and sustainable manner. In the light of this

statement, a social entrepreneur planning to introduce a technology in a developing country

can achieve his or her goal only when he or she has well understood the needs of the peoples

and societies in the developing countries that he or she is reaching out to. This is what David

Green did when he decided to produce Inter-Ocular Lenses in India and provide them to an

eye care hospital in the Southern part of India, where the problem of cataract plagues a huge

section of the population. David Green introduced a relatively high end technology of

producing such lenses at an acceptable level of quality. He has been extremely successful in

his objective of helping the poor afflicted with the cataract problem by serving their need for

affordable eye care. In the context of technology, another aspect that made his project so

successful was the socio-economic diversity in a country like India. What makes David

Green’s lens production technology appropriate is the fact that he was able to utilize the

local capacities of the peoples to serve the health care needs of a population belonging to a

lower socio-economic stratum in the same society.

Even though there are a lot of successful examples of social entrepreneurs like David Green

who introduce technologies in developing countries that create tremendous positive social

impact by providing goods and services, unfortunately such projects can also have

unintended negative impacts on these societies. The complexity associated with the idea of

introducing technologies to developing societies and countries poses a number of risks and

threats that social entrepreneurs should be aware of and hence warrants the need for a

discussion of the role of technology from another standpoint. In the next part of the paper,

we explore such risks with the intent to better inform the social entrepreneurs.

8

PART 2

COULD TECHNOLOGY BE HARMFUL TO DEVELOPING SOCIETIES?The fundamental idea we would like to present in this part of the paper is the following:

There could be a set of guiding principles (a theoretical framework) by which technology

introduction in developing countries could be planned, executed and evaluated. Abiding by

these principles can ensure that risks to the society where the technology is introduced are at

least minimized.

Such principles could be useful to social entrepreneurs and socially responsible

organizations, who should be aware of the risks associated with introducing new

technologies in developing countries. By having such awareness, they can minimize the

unintended effects that may arise out of attempts to improve lives in developing countries by

introducing new technologies. Apart from being useful to these actors, such guiding

principles could also be of use to responsibly competing10 11 business corporations (i.e.,

Unilever, Shell, BP), in order to ensure that their socially responsible initiatives produce an

impact free from negative effects.

The principles could be used as a foundation for establishing an understanding of the

harmful effects technology could bring to developing societies, in particular by damaging

these societies at the ‘higher’ level of their existence, in terms of their culture. Here, it is

important to understand that culture is crucial, as no society is one without it. Damage such

as this usually happens out of an interaction between a new technology and a developing

society which is not yet ready to fully embrace all the new possibilities that the technology

may create for its social and cultural development. To put it in another way, technology can

10 The authors refer here to ‘Responsible Competitiveness’ following on a conference by UNCTAD (United Nations Centre for Trade and Development) they attended in January 2006. 11 ‘Responsible Competitiveness - Reshaping Global Markets Through Responsible Business Practices: Summary of Findings’, December 2005, by Accountability and in association with FDC (Fundacao Dom Cabral), paper presented as part of an UNCTAD conference on Responsible Competitiveness, January 2006.

9

be harmful to developing societies because these are simply not in the position to appropriate

it by finding it useful and relevant to their lives. The effects of any technology are usually

pervasive and in that way, they become negatively pervasive. A new technology can be

inappropriate to a developing society and therefore potentially damaging to this society

because it does not address the society’s actual needs for development and progress.

Outline to Part 2

In achieving the above purpose, Part 2 of this paper adopts the following outline: firstly, we

consider why there are good reasons to believe that new technologies could bring substantial

harm to developing societies; secondly, we attempt to put the previous into a broader

context, by examining the challenges posed by different cultures, whereby we view cultures

as pervasive webs of meaning that we humans essentially use to put structures into our lives

and inappropriate technology can have a damaging effect on such structures; thirdly, we

define what we see as the dynamic equilibrium to be succeeded within a society by

introducing new technology; finally, we conclude Part 2 by listing a set of guiding principles

for social entrepreneurs and socially responsible organizations, with the aim for this to create

an awareness on their part regarding that well-intended technological innovations could

indeed have pervasively negative effects on developing country societies.

Reasons Why Technology Could Damage a Society

The main reason why a new technology could bring, sometimes irreversibly, harmful effects

to a developing society is because technologies, for a start, are usually designed for use by a

society in developed and not developing countries. To put this more clearly, any tool of

human creation has been put together to address certain needs by the people of a society for

domination over the environment. By ‘domination’, we mean that people strive to control

their environment to help society do better by having more predictability and reliability with

respect to its endeavours. Once a technological innovation has surpassed the irreversible

10

phase, ‘obtaining the dominant design’, it becomes embedded into the social system12. Such

needs for domination could be very different between developed and developing countries,

therefore a technology designed for developed countries could be attacking and potentially

destroying the core of societies in developing countries.

When embarking on technology-led social innovations, it is important to remember that

developing societies are inherently unfamiliar with the technology and the circumstances

that have led to its creation within developed countries, and therefore could be at risk from

technologies being poorly adjusted to their needs, wants and expectations. In most cases, if

not all, developing societies have not been able to ‘grow’ with the technology as developed

societies have and could therefore find themselves painfully vulnerable to its unanticipated

effects.

For example, in Bangladesh, recent introduction of mobile phone use and services has been

the reason of some concern. The principle behind the mobile phone technology was invented

by and subsequently configured for developed societies. Having been introduced in

Bangladesh, it has led to more than rapid social and economic change13. Importantly, this

‘Western’ technology and the way in which it was introduced into the society (i.e., free calls

after midnight) has led to the shattering of the moral foundations of this society. Specifically,

the culture of arranged marriages in Bangladesh is being challenged, one reason for which

being the rising use of mobile services by the young, increasingly free to connect with each

other and break away from family ties. The introduction of the new technology has thus

brought with it some characteristics of the ‘Western’ society, sternly opposed by the

12 Mitsufuji, T., (2004), ‘How an innovation is formed: A case study of Japanese word processors’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 71, Issue 3, March 2004, Pages 313-314. Here, the author discusses an innovation-diffusion model, on the assumption that an innovation interacts with a social system, which shows dynamic and self-organizing characteristics. Once a technological innovation has surpassed the irreversible phase, obtaining the dominant design, it becomes embedded into the social system. To illustrate this, the author refers to the diffusion process of the Japanese word processors into the Japanese society around the 1980s. In other words, the author discusses the social embeddedness of technology and points out the importance of its meeting of the society’s ‘parameters’ so that it is successfully adopted. In the context of developing societies, it is important to introduce technologies and do so in ways that rightly address the needs for sustainable development of these societies. 13 ‘Bangladesh to curb ‘vulgar’ calls.’, by Buerk, R., BBC News, January 2006, Dhaka, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4614640.stm

11

Bangladeshi authorities. Although, to a Westerner, a development where young people

become more free to choose how to live could seem like a natural and inherently beneficial

effect of the new technology, it is important (for Westerners) to understand that such an

effect could in fact be deeply damaging to a society unprepared for it.

To illustrate this further, consider the introduction of snowmobile technology among the

Skolt Lapps, a reindeer-herding people of northern Finland14. The introduction of this novel

technology led to a sudden, unanticipated and very severe disruption of the reindeer-centred

culture of the Skolt Lapp people. In particular, the rate of adoption of the technology was

very rapid, entailing with it a significant drop in the number of reindeers herded per

household and in the number of reindeer calves naturally grown in this part of Finland (noise

pollution was given as a main reason), as well as a progressive slaughtering of herded

reindeers by the Skolt Lapps in order to sell their meat and have the means to purchase

snowmobiles, gasoline, spare parts and repairs. Most families ended up unemployed or

dependent on the Finish government for payments. In other words, and as Rogers15 points

out in his book, the Skolt Lapps were not prepared for the effects of the novel technology,

Having not been ‘socialised’ into it, they could not anticipate any potentially negative effects

and then control for these by trying to adjust to the technology in a prudent and incremental

way.

In essence, developed societies have to be responsible with respect to the technology

generalizations they make to developing countries. As much as a technology-driven change

could be beneficially transformative to a developing society, positively displacing the

existing possibility frontiers and bringing people new arrays of hope, such a change could

irreversibly bring about effects largely unanticipated and thoroughly negative, because of a

pronounced ‘asynchrony’ between the technology and the society.

14 Rogers, E., (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, p. 436, fifth ed., New York: Free Press.15 Rogers, E., (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, p. 436, fifth ed., New York: Free Press.

12

The Challenge of Different Cultures

The above discussed examples of negative effects that new technology could have on a

developing society unprepared for its impact should be put in an additional context of

explanation. This context has to do with the importance of different cultures and the

challenges there could arise when one culture ‘clashes’ with another. As we already

discussed above, technology can be seen as an artifact, i.e., a creation, of a particular culture

(society). If this technology is introduced into a different culture (society), unfamiliar with

the processes that would have led to its creation, then this technology could potentially harm

the latter culture (society), or at least lead to a process where the technology is not being

adopted and is thus being wasted by being rejected.

As Solo points out, ‘one reason why advanced technologies are not used in low-productivity

economies may be because they are not usable there. They have evolved in and consequently

are adapted to a social and physical environment which differs significantly from that in

developing societies. On account of these differences, their use in the developing society will

sometimes be uneconomic and technically retrogressive.’16

In other words, investing new technologies into a developing society carries with it

important implications of the differences in culture that may exist between these societies,

such differences pertaining to how people approach their living in these societies, in order to

be at a satisfactory level of productivity and the needs they seek to address in order to

happily optimize their lives in a sustainable way.

From a ‘culture’ point of view, people in different societies create social fabrics that tie them

together, enabling them to communicate and achieve individual and common purposes.

Another way of putting this is in terms of ‘inherent webs of meaning’17 that people within a

society create for and among themselves, to structure their existence and enable a common

understanding, making the use of all technologies purposeful and beneficial. All

16 See Solo, R., (2001), ‘Capacity to assimilate an advanced technology’, American Economic Review, Vol. 56, issue 2, pp 91-98.17 Schneider, S. and Barsoux, J., (2003), ‘Managing Across Cultures’, Chapter 4: ‘Culture and organization’, an imprint of Pearson Education.

13

technologies that have been created within a society carry with it its inherent webs of

meaning. In this sense, introducing new technologies within developing societies without

taking into account the inherent webs of meaning of the developing society and how these

could clash with those of the developed society having created the technology can lead to

repercussions within the developing society, such that this society could be put forth on a

path of development that is not sustainable in the long run.

To illustrate this, the introduction of television in Bhutan serves to support such an

argument. After five years of broadcasting, Bhutan's government is now considering

legislation to regulate what the country's people can watch18, having observed a rise in

violence among the youth. This rise in violence, they claim, is due to young people’s

admiration for and attempts to imitate wrestlers regularly seen on the staged US wrestling

series WWF. In this particular case, we witness new technology being introduced into a

society where it diffuses cultural content inappropriate for that country’s already existing

culture. In this way, the technology, by its mere inappropriate introduction, ends up

damaging some parts of the moral core of the developing society and represents a threat to

its well-being and advancement. Furthermore, it, in a way, attempts to shape the society from

without, instead of sustainably promoting its development from within, by building onto the

already existing culture and ensuring that this is better harnessed to give the people of

Bhutan better socio-economic means to pursue their own progress19. 18 ‘Has TV changed Bhutan?’, BBC news, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3812275.stm19 To further illustrate the sometimes far from positive interplay among cultures, the authors recently engaged in a discussion with David Green, a prominent social entrepreneur and founder of the Project Impact non-profit organization: http://www.project-impact.net/. Our discussion with David was centered on any risks and cultural sensitivity issues that he had been encountering in his work of making medical technology accessible, affordable, and financially self-sustaining in developing countries. Interestingly, David shared with us his experience of ‘wrong behaviors’ (lying, stealing, deceiving) he had been encountering from the part of developing society people he had had to work with in order to introduce affordable technology in developing countries, in the aim to initiate beneficial social change. Although he did not elaborate on these issues, we interpreted these as indirect testimonies to the existence of certain competitive pressures, so to say frictions, between the two cultures (David’s ‘Western industrial’ culture and the developing country’s culture) that could easily represent a risk to the introduction of any technology innovative with respect a developing society. Such risks could come about because of some not well understood and therefore unaddressed cultural and structural discrepancies, effectively jeopardizing the adoption of the particular technology in a way that is most benevolent, constructive and bringing a positive life change to the developing society. David additionally pointed out that, in order to achieve best possible consequences as a result of implementing a project, he would have to carefully select the right level of technical knowledge and expertise of the people from the local culture he would be looking to work with, in order to bring his ideas to a positive realization. Again, this is an example of cultural and structural discrepancies between the two types

14

Desired Equilibrium

To follow onto the above, how do we ensure that a technology is sufficiently well adapted to

a developing society? In his book ‘Diffusion of Innovations’20, Rogers points the importance

of achieving a dynamic equilibrium when diffusing technological innovations (p. 453).

“…which occurs when the rate of change in a social system occurs at a rate that is

commensurate with the system’s ability to cope with it. Change occurs in a system in

dynamic equilibrium, but it occurs at a rate that allows the system to adapt to it.”

The key message from Rogers’ point that should be relevant to social entrepreneurs is that

the way to ensure there is no clash among cultures is to incrementally build technological

progress within a developing society by bringing in new technologies.

Guiding PrinciplesBasing on the above outline and discussion, here the following set of principles is proposed

to social entrepreneurs and socially responsible organizations, to gain them a certain level of

awareness of the implications of introducing new technologies into developing countries and

also to guide their attempts at improving lives in developing countries by introducing new

technologies:

Consider/study the culture, in terms of level of development, morals and webs of meaning

and understanding.

Do a survey into the society’s actual needs and wants and expectations.

Establish the parameters of the technology and see whether these align with the society, in

terms of addressing its actual needs, wants and expectations. Should a technology not

address an actual need, then its introduction within a society is strongly discouraged.

Ensure that any new technology fits sufficiently well within the wider context of cultural

development and understanding already existing within the developing society. Ensure that

new technologies (as in the example with television) are embedded within the social context

of society (developed and developing), which should be approached strategically to divert the harmful effects and bring about the right ‘consequences’.20 Rogers, E., (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, p. 436, fifth ed., New York: Free Press.

15

and are thus meeting the society’s actual needs, wants and expectations for development.

Ensure that technologies are well configured within the broader cultural ‘picture’ of the

society, by offering content and services that promote societal development ‘from within’

and not aggressively shaping the society ‘from without’.

Aim for appropriated technologies (i.e., customized) that could be easily taken up by the

developing country society. Aim for the technology to be appropriate by targeting this at the

‘right spot’ within a society.

Design and introduce technologies for the developing society by asking these societies and

their people what they need and look to improve in their lives. Target the people’s needs

first, and then look for the appropriate technology.

CONCLUSIONSThroughout the process of writing this paper, the authors came to the following, fairly

obvious, conclusion: there are two sides to the same coin.

With respect to introducing technology into developing societies, one side is that technology

could potentially bring very beneficial changes, the intended positive impacts, into these

societies when it has been made sure that the technology introduced is appropriate for the

context in which its beneficiaries exist. Technology indeed has a tremendous potential and

developed countries are testimonies to this statement. However, the social entrepreneurs and

socially conscious organizations looking to make a positive impact on developing countries

by introducing technologies should bear in mind the fact that developing countries are at a

different stage on the path of sociological and economic development. Only a careful

analysis of the context – the society, the culture, and the socio-economic status of a

developing country could lead to the successful introduction of a new technology. Once such

careful analysis has preceded a socially entrepreneurial technology project, it will matter less

whether the technology introduced is a low, intermediate, or a high technology. A

16

technology that takes into account the above factors thus becomes appropriate and holds the

potential to drastically displace the possibility frontiers in these countries, by bringing new

and exciting arrays of opportunity and hope.

There is, however, another side to this, often very glistening, coin. This other side pertains to

that technology could easily, in the process and after being introduced, bring a number of

harmful effects into a developing country society, damaging its social, economic and

spiritual core.

How do we ensure that there is always and continuously just one side of the coin on top?

Social entrepreneurs and socially responsible organizations are in a very good position to

work according with responsible action-oriented strategies and operations for technology-led

social investment, based on sets of guiding principles. These strategies and operations should

be aiming to ensure that the technology they bring into developing countries is not alien,

harsh and damaging to these societies. In other words, technology should not be imposed in

an uninformed attempt to make these societies a mere replica of the developed world.

Technology-led investments should, above all, start with a consideration for the moral, social

and economic constituents of the developing society they are aiming to benefit.

Economically powerful social entrepreneurs and organizations certainly can, by introducing

new technology, aggressively shape less powerful societies ‘from without’. Nevertheless,

developing societies should be given the chance and opportunity to develop ‘from within’

and find their own best way of appropriating the technology.

17