Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
- 4 - Least Developed Countries In these poorer countries, new programs, new institutions, and new mechanisms are needed to target specific, chronic problems. Traditional humanitarian motives for foreign assistance should be linked with broader and longer-term environmental concerns to halt the degradation of natural resources affecting the quality of life of people in the least developed countries. U.S. assistance programs should be directed at survival needs, such as the supply of basic foods, emphasizing the applied sciences to rebuild the agricultural resource base in anticipation of later economic growth. Governmental or bilateral programs should focus on building infrastructure and human resource capacity and should encourage innovation by the private sector in small-scale, technology-based enterprises in key areas. Advanced Developing Countries The United States should create "partnerships" with the advanced developing countries based on mutual benefit and broader, long-term national interests. Through such partnerships, the U.S. government and its technical agencies can strengthen collaborative programs and encourage private sector involvement. The issues of intellectual property rights and equal access to data and other information deserve special attention. U.S. government programs with a given country should not be centralized in one U.S. agency but remain decentralized as they are today. However, Presidential-level programs, such as the Science and Technology Initiatives with India and Brazil, could serve as models where appropriate. The United States and the advanced developing countries might collaborate to solve problems in the least developed countries. Mechanisms and Institutional Issues Many of the new and rapidly changing areas of science and technology are in frontier fields such as biotechnology, materials science, and manufacturing technologies, but most of the U.S. governmental delivery mechanisms for science and technology assistance have been in place for over a quarter century. U.S. foreign assistance programs should draw the private sector into technology development and should make use of private, intermediate organizations and institutions. A central agency promoting science and technology for development, such as the Institute for Scientific and Technical Cooperation proposed a decade ago, still has merit. Alternatively, the U.S. foreign assistance agency should have a strong division with a central focus on science and technology, while maintaining a sectoral approach to provide expertise. Greater coordination of S&T activities outside AID is needed, possibly along the lines of the Presidential Initiatives with India and Brazil. Multilateral mechanisms for delivering science and technology, such as the World Bank and United Nations agencies, deserve closer attention by the United States. PLENARY PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTS Nylc C. Brady: Although the application of science and technology has brought about accelerated economic and social progress in the industrialized
- 5 - 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 J 1 1 world, it has not had a comparable effect in the developing world. S&T has had a significant effect on solving basic problems in agriculture, health, and population in the developing countries, however. As we look to the challenges of the future, we must question whether the priorities of the U.S. technical assistance program during the last thirty years are appropriate for the 1990s and beyond. We must be prepared to deal with the increasing problems of urbanization and other social and economic pressures in the least developed countries, as well as find methods for S&T cooperation with the advanced developing or middle income countries. Jordan Baruch: We must examine alternative models for technological cooperation with developing countries. The micro approach to development, as opposed to the macro approach with large capital projects, should be applied where appropriate. Models such as the BIRD (Binational Industrial Research and Development) Foundation with Israel and the PACT (Program for Acquistion of Commercial Technology) with India should be encouraged. Such programs link U.S. and host country commercial enterprises and provide loans for joint ventures. Some of the advantages of micro-development are that it produces change slowly, brings about improvements in the infrastructure when their absence impedes development, and helps build indigenous capacities by training local managers on the job. The failure of a micro-enterprise does not cripple a country, and the risk-takers are not labelled failures because the project did not evolve as planned. Francisco Saeasti: We must find ways in which to apply scientific and technological solutions to improving the standard of living in developing countries without incurring tremendous social costs. In the next decades, slower economic growth, coupled with the explosion of demands for housing, health care, and other social services, will create a crisis in developing countries. Particular attention must be paid to technology policy in the process of applying science and technology to these problems. Developing countries face the need for new concepts of economic management and pragmatism. Generalized solutions cannot be applied to developing countries indiscriminately. The United States should not adopt narrow national policies of protectionism, which are counterproductive to efforts in developing countries. The United States should live up to its commitment of ten years ago to contribute to a United Nations financial system for Third World science and technology development. Kenneth Prewitt: The Rockefeller Foundation's program in Africa is based on the following four premises: (a) that scientists in the developed world must be constantly mobilized to work on developing country problems, (b) that indigenous capacity for science and technology must be created and strengthened, (c) that policy constraints at the national level in the developing countries must be addressed, and (d) that scientists and development planners must understand and overcome the seemingly innumerable barriers that frustrate the development process. In Africa, building indigenous capacity in science and technology requires working with three sectors: scientists and technical personnel, policymakers, and the general population. In African countries, the United States must find ways to work with and link these sectors to create a demand for science-based development strategies.