(Published
in MOVING TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 7, No.1, March
1992, pg. 2-5. Published by CAPART,
(Since the publication of this article quite a
substantial amount of work on rural technology has
been done at NARI. It is
available at this site.)
Director
Nimbkar
Agricultural Research Institute
(NARI)
E-mail:
nariphaltan@gmail.com
A
large number of voluntary organizations are
involved in developing
technologies for rural areas. However,
these technologies have hardly touched the lives
of rural population.
Data on rural market potential shows that a
population of about 250 million in rural areas
exhibits a high level of market
potential. This
is almost 25% total
population of
The
following points will highlight the existing
situation:
·
Most
of the technologies being
propagated in rural areas are urban-based and
biased. They
trickle down to rural areas.
·
Rural
population is not composed
of subhuman beings.
Their needs and
aspirations are similar to those living in urban
areas. Technology
development should take place
keeping these aspirations in view.
·
Most
of the technology development
that takes place for rural areas is carried out
with an aim to keep it simple
so that the devices can be made in rural areas
itself. This
is a peculiar mindset of technology
developers. For
poorer sections of rural
population, it is asking too much to have them
make their own chulhas, bullock
carts etc. At
least nobody in urban
areas asks consumers to make their own scooters or
cooking stoves!
·
Again
the emphasis of technology
developers for rural areas has been on catering
for needs (with small
improvement) rather than creating a demand.
History shows that technological
development has been fueled by creation
of demand. And
the watchword is
convenience.
Thus convenience is the
vehicle of development. For
example, a
large number of developmental groups are working
on making better chulhas. Feedback
from the ‘better chulha’ program has
not been very encouraging. Developers
do
not realize that chulha is still a chulha, even if
it is slightly better. Every
housewife, irrespective of the economic
strata, which she comes from, would like to have
the convenience of blue flame
of a gas stove.
There is a demand for
it. Negligible
work has been done on
developing technology for producing blue flame
from fuelwood and biomass
residues.
·
There
is also a peculiar mismatch
of groups with perception of, and those with
resource for, rural technology
development.
Thus labs, especially
National labs, which have resources, do not have
any perception of the needs
and demands of rural population. On the
other hand, the grass-root NGOs who have the
perception of the problem do not
have the technological resources to solve them.
·
Again
there is a mindset for
simple technologies in rural technology
developers. Why
it is so, is difficult to comprehend when
right in front of them are examples contradicting
it. For
example, bicycle which is the mainstay of
rural transport is a complex piece of machinery
and is manufactured in
sophisticated plants all over the country.
It has spread in every nook and corner of
rural
·
Another
interesting example of
demand creation is the setting up of supermarkets
in rural
Below
are possible solutions or the strategies for
developing rural
technologies and how best to propagate them:
·
Rural
technology development and
propagation should be a consortium project.
The members of such consortia will include
industry, grassroot NGOs,
researchers and workers. With
industry
in the picture right from the beginning, there is
a scope for ensuring better
sales efforts.
An example will
illustrate this point. Nimbkar
Agricultural
Research Institute (NARI) has developed an
extremely efficient kerosene lantern
capable of giving light output equivalent to a 100
W light bulb.
Getting this technology marketed through
various high volume consumer products groups is
proving to be quite
difficult. This
was despite the fact
that preliminary consumer survey data showed an
overwhelmingly satisfactory
response to the lantern. Generally
the
response of these consumer product companies was
either NIH (Not Invented Here)
syndrome or there was no perception of the market
potential of this
lantern. This
could be because of the
urban bias of these companies. If one
of
these companies was involved with NARI right from
the beginning in developing
this lantern, then probably these lanterns would
have come in the market. The
companies need to have a stake in the
technology development to be serious about it.
·
This
consortium approach can be
facilitated by organizations like CAPART.
Thus in giving funds for any technology
development scheme to an NGO,
CAPART should insist on industry linkage.
The problems of patent rights, royalty etc.
can be amicably solved to
the mutual satisfaction of all parties.
A similar strategy needs to be adopted by
other government organizations
in their rural development programs.
·
Once
the industry linkage is
established, then automatically the whole
machinery of consumer demand creation
comes into play.
This includes high
volume production, good quality products, media
advertising, sales outlets and
after sales service.
No technology has
successfully reached the masses without the above
attributes and rural
technology should follow the same evolutionary
process.
·
As
discussed before, the vehicle
of development is convenience. Rural
technology development should take place with this
as a major theme.
There are a large number of cases where
people are ready to pay a higher price for goods
which give them
convenience.
Also associated with the
theme of convenience is sophistication.
Hallmark of evolution is size reduction and
increased sophistication and
complexity of systems. Technology
developers
should not shy away from complex and sophisticated
technologies for
rural areas.
As long as these
technologies are backed by good after-sales
service, are convenient to use and
are reasonably priced, they will spread rapidly.
·
Till
now most of the technologies
have been borrowed from the west. They
have been taken up in urban areas and then
filtered down to rural areas. Some
examples will highlight this point. Bicycle
was designed to run on good
roads. For
rural roads there is a need
to have simple shock absorbers and better seats. Similarly
two wheelers (like Honda,
·
The
spread of rural technologies
will be facilitated if they also are employment
generators. Thus
high-tech agrobased industries can
provide a possible solution. These
industries will be in the areas of food
processing, energy production
(electricity producing plants running on biomass
and ethanol production) and
production of raw materials for chemical
industries. Sugar
cooperatives (which are chemical industries)
have shown that in rural
Finally, it should be
pointed out that in any such
discussion about rural technology development and
propagation, the question
boils down to whom this technology is for.
Most of the funding agencies and the
participatory groups like NGOs
would like to see these technologies benefit the
lowest strata of the rural
population. However,
the economic
situation of these people precludes any or little
participation in this
process. It
is however possible that if
the technologies help 250 million people (high
market potential group) in rural
areas, the whole process can snowball to include
the poorest sections into the
economic revolution.
This vast rural
market can produce whole economic systems which
will span from manufacturing to
service industries.
A detailed article
expanding on this theme and the
work done
at NARI is published
recently.
Put on the net. April
2014.