Appropriate technology
returned to its original purpose with nearly as much strength, greatly speeding up the steady decline that AT’s conceptual flaws and difficulties in execution had caused.
Conclusion
It can be seen that AT has overall been a failure, due to the three main factors that I have covered: the concept itself, its execution, and the decline of Alternative AT, although the significance of each in leading to the demise of AT has not been equal. The concept of AT has not contributed significantly to its failure since, theoretically, it could have been an effective developmental aid that could have brought widespread improvements to standards of living as well as promoting economic growth, despite its flaw s. Far more important in causing AT’s failure was its consistently poor execution, which produced repeated failures that caused the movement to lose public and governmental support in favour of other developmental aids with a more proven track record. Additionally, the decline of the AT movement in the USA caused lots of the general excitement around AT to die down, meaning there was not enough support for AT to carry it past its failures. These factors can be simplified to theoretical, practical and political, with the theory being sound but challenges in the practical and political sides of AT leading to its failure. Despite the fact that AT has mostly failed as a movement, as Simon Trace writes in the epilogue of his 2016 book Rethink, Retool, Reboot , and as we discussed in our interview, Schumacher’s ideas are still very relevant in the modern day, if not more so than when first conceived, due to the environmental challenges facing us as well as rising unemployment due to automation. Additionally, ‘ technology has moved on ’ , and modern technological advances have arguably made the concept more viable due to the development of small-scale technologies that were not present when AT was first proposed, such as 3D printing and solar panels, which make small-scale, self-sufficient projects much more realistic. Therefore, AT should not be forgotten as a development tool or as a philosophy to direct developed economies towards more sustainable choices.
References
1. Goldin, I. (2018). Development: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford 2. Schumacher, E. (1973) Small is beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered . New York 3. Brooks, H. (1981). ‘ A critique of the concept of Appropriate Technology’, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 34.6:16–37. 4. Eckaus, R. (1987). ‘Appropriate Technology: the movement has only a few clothes on’, Issues in Science and Technology 3.2: 62–71. 5. Stewart, F. (1987) ‘ The case for Appropriate Technology: a reply to R. S. Eckaus’, Issues in Science and Technology 3.4: 101–109. 6. Pursell, C. (1993) ‘The rise and fall of the Appropriate Technology Movement in the United States, 1965-1985’, Technology and Culture 34.3: 629-637. 7. Frahm, A. and Buttel, F. (1982) ‘Appropriate Technology: current debate and future possibilities’, Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 9.2: 11–37. 8. Green, D. (2000) ‘Small farm households at the cutting edge: appropriate technology and sustainable rural development’, Transformation 17.2: 70–74.
128
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker