Revisiting Schumacher’s Appropriate Technology in the 21st century

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Revisiting Schumacher’s Appropriate Technology in the 21st century The use of case study methodology to study 'Grassroots Innovation' in India

By

Hardik Yogi

MSc Innovation and Technology Management School of Management University of Bath 9th September 2010 1

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Revisiting Schumacher’s Appropriate Technology in the 21st century The use of case study methodology to study 'Grassroots Innovation' in India

Hardik Yogi University of Bath

Abstract The paper tests Schumacher hypothesis against the 21st century, with the goal of promoting diversity in technology choice to achieve an inclusive endogenous innovation model for India.

Briefly stating the needs and difficulties of ‘Appropriate’ technology, the paper points out a major limitation in fulfilling the above stated goal. Appropriate technology, in the conventional sense, has concerned itself with transfer of technologies, often from the West to the rural poor. It is argued here that although generic and appropriate technologies are essential to solve the poverty problem, an alternative and complementary ‘Grassroots’ innovation movement in rural India has shown how solutions need not always come across as a technology transfer; people maybe be economically poor but are knowledge rich. Their ‘survival’ and ‘opportunity’ innovations are fundamentally and inherently appropriate and need to be recognized into the formal stream. Only then is diversity in technology choice achieved, culminating in a true inclusive endogenous innovation model.

2

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

INDEX Chapter 1: Introduction 1.A. Revisiting Schumacher’s Appropriate Technology in the 21st century ------------------ 05 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.A. The need for Appropriate Technology for development ----------------------------------- 07 2.B. Understanding Appropriate Technology for the 21st century ----------------------------- 11 2.C. Difficulties with Appropriate Technology --------------------------------------------------- 14 2.D. Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Chapter 3: Methodology 3.A. Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 3.B. Case Study Method ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 3.C. The Honey Bee Network ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20 3.D. Limitations of methodology -------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Chapter 4: Case study - Appropriate Technology LOCALLY produced 4.A. Case Study 1: Windmill actuated bore-well pumping unit --------------------------------- 23 4.B. Case Study 2: Mini sanitary napkin making machine --------------------------------------- 26 Chapter 5: Grassroots Innovation - Broadening the scope of Appropriate Technology 5.A. Understanding ‘Grassroots’ Innovation -------------------------------------------------------- 32 5.B. Diversity of Technology choice ----------------------------------------------------------------- 36 5.C. Conclusion ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 5.D. Limitations and Future Research --------------------------------------------------------------- 39

Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 03 Bibliography -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 Abbreviation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44

Appendix 1: Grassroots Innovation Network ------------------------------------------------------ 45 Appendix 2: Questionnaire --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51

3

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Chapter 1: Introduction

4

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

1.A. Revisiting Schumacher’s Appropriate Technology in the 21st century “In 2004, approximately 980 million people around the world survived off less than $1/ day.” (UN Report, 2007) The paper revolves around testing the Schumacher (1973) hypothesis against the 21st century and questions if “The Small is Beautiful” debate has been able to achieve an inclusive endogenous innovation model 1 . To sustain high growth and help alleviate poverty, India needs to pursue its innovation potential more aggressively, relying on innovation-led and inclusive growth policies to achieve economic and social transformation (Utz and Dahlman, 2007). Also, the need for diversity in technology choice is amplified by giving macro views of two alternative movements: the ‘Appropriate’ technology (AT) and ‘Grassroots’ innovation (GI) movement.2, 3 The first half of the paper deals with the need for AT and understanding it from a development perspective. It is followed by discussing few of the difficulties in interpretation and implementation of AT; some writers studied and revised the appropriate technology movement and conceded that technology itself was not the sole answer to poverty alleviation. This subscribed to diverse amendments by various writers and AT groups that have been briefly mentioned. But none gravitate to considering the following limitation in the AT movement: using ‘indigenous innovation’ as a starting point in development of appropriate technologies.

The second half of the paper, with the aid of case studies, thus argues that AT movement needs to move beyond superficial participation tactics in the innovation process. Marginal communities in fragile environments maybe economically poor but are knowledge rich (Gupta et al., 2000). By recognizing the importance of ‘Grassroots’ innovations, this paper tries to answer the two questions set at the start: how to engineer a true inclusive endogenous innovation model using appropriate technology and its derivatives, and the need to expand the crucible of creativity with diversity in technology choice.

1

Inclusive innovation is defined as knowledge creation and absorption efforts that are most relevant to the needs of the

poor. (Utz and Dahlman, 2007) 2

Henceforth, abbreviations AT for Appropriate technology and GI for Grassroots innovations will be used as and when

deemed necessary. Refer to page 44 for a detailed list of Abbreviations used in this paper.

3

Definition of ‘Grassroots’ innovation is provided in Chapter 5. This term was first used by Professor Anil Gupta of

Honey Bee Network (HBN) (Chapter 4 and Appendix 1). The discussion of GI will be limited to rural India.

5

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Chapter 2: Literature Review

6

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

2.A. The need for Appropriate Technology for development “Rural unemployment becomes urban unemployment” (Schumacher, 1973) The case against the use of large-scale technology was made by Schumacher between the early 1950s and the late 1970s. It is still legitimate today. Walt Rostow’s (1960) high–mass consumption age has led to many serious problems in industrial countries. Despite five decades and over $2 trillion dollars spent on foreign aid, the top-down prescriptions of the post-World War II ‘development regime’ have proven ineffective (Simanis and Hart, 2008).

In addition, approximately 3.2 billion people in the world today live in urban environments, one in three urban dwellers live in slum conditions lacking at least one of three basic conditions: adequate sanitation, safe water supply, and durable housing or adequate living space (Murphy et al., 2009, UN Report, 2007). The earth’s ecological system is being disrupted due to global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, loss of living species, and deforestation (Gore, 1992). Forty calories have to be spent to produce a calorie worth of food for mechanization of agriculture to work (Varma, 2003).

Air-pollution from burning gasoline in cities, inappropriate use of chemical and nuclear energy and the high rate of depletion of fossil fuels for industries leave future generations in disarray. The individual finds himself or herself further and further removed from the many of the major decisions taken by the society in which he or she lives (Varma, 2003).

Less developed countries (LDC) 4 face additional problems of the drain on foreign reserves, technological dependence, high unemployment rate, and severe poverty. The urban-rural divide has been blamed on a strategy concentrated entirely on modern-sector development. This has caused a dualism the creation of a small, relatively high-income modern sector as an island in a wide sea of traditional economic activity (Grieve, 2004). Developmentalists perceived this gap as a deficit of the powerless and not as a fault of the powerful, failing to recognize that the aid to developing nations in various forms has so far by-passed almost sixty percent of the population.

4

As mentioned in the article by GRIEVE, R. (2004) Appropriate technology in a globalizing world. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 3, 173-188.

7

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

It is now scarcely disputed that the linear model of transfer of technology (TOT) has resulted in the continued exploitation of peripheral areas by the metropolitan core, both internally and externally, promoting a dependency culture (Date, 1981). As Date (1981) observes; “The strategy was largely based on the percolation theory of the distribution of the benefits of rapid economic growth. The fact that over 60 per cent of the people (primarily in rural areas) still continue to live below the poverty line has led to disenchantment with this technocratic and bureaucratic strategy of development.” (pp. 5)

Schumacher argued that technical change and technology transfer, conventionally practiced with a linear one-way flow of information and technology from top to bottom (Sonne, 2010), led to inappropriate choices of technology and products (particularly in developing countries). Regardless of the fact that in most of these countries labour was plentiful and cheap and capital was scarce and expensive, technology transfer and trade tended to focus on capital intensive technologies and products 5 (Schumacher, 1999). This precipitated into the twin evils of the ‘dual economy’ mass unemployment and mass migration from rural areas to towns and cities a process termed as ‘mutual poisoning’ (Schumacher, 1999, pp. 138). This further contributed towards increased inequality between urban elites and the rest of the population, and the production of luxury and other goods for elite home consumption and export markets, while the basis needs of the population, especially the rural poor, remained unsatisfied. Dependence on foreign capital and expertise invariably followed, resulting in a growing foreign debt burden 6.

In parallel to this linear model of diffusion and the philosophy of ‘What is best for the rich must be the best for the poor’ - Schumacher started the alternative ‘Intermediate Technology’ movement 7.

5

Some authors label this as ‘supplier’ or ‘science’ led innovation where generic technologies were transfered to the

rural poor from the formal sectors of the West. The rural poor were treated only as passive users.

6 7

Ibid.

The names - intermediate and appropriate - the later being proposed by Indian planners in the early 1960s with a

meaning, in practice, very similar to the one attached by Schumacher to intermediate technology. Further clarity is provided in later chapters between the two terms.

8

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Emphasis on blueprints, mass production and transfer of generic technology (TOT) to developing countries as accomplished with the Green Revolution, did not make economies sustainable 8 . As tractors and water pumps were abandoned and as other technologies failed to perform effectively in a third world setting, people began to question technology choice and how technology selection should be approached from a development perspective (Mitchell, 1980, Murphy et al., 2009). Rural development scholars began to heavily criticize the TOT model for portraying the rural poor simply as passive technology adopters (Biggs, 1981) and for considering only exogenous technological change 9 (and not endogenous). (Sonne, 2010) The solution then, according to Schumacher (1973), was for developing countries to adopt this ‘Intermediate Technology’ 10 . Such technology would be aimed at helping poor people to do what they were already doing in a better way, using methods and machines that were cheap, accessible, small scale and allowed room for human creativity. Schumacher created a separate paradigm which stressed the need for technologies to be appropriate for local conditions, to be ‘adapted’ to current economic and resource conditions and to avoid environmental degradation or human displacement (Sonne, 2010). What was also essential, he believed, was mounting a direct attack on the poverty, misery and desperation existing beyond the urban centre of modern industrialization (Grieve, 2004).

8

Though heavily criticized later on, the Green Revolution and the High Yielding Variety (HYV) were credited with

seeing off a severe humanitarian crisis of South Asia (Sonne, 2010).

9

Exogenous technology in this case being the technology transferred from international and national centers.

10

In a meeting organized by UNEP (1975), the following terms in use were listed: intermediate technology; appropriate

technology; self-help technology; progressive technology; biotechnics; ecologically-based technology; soft technology; alternative technology; resource-conserving technology; new alchemy; low waste and no waste technology; environmentally sound technology; liberatory technology; people's technology; convivial technology; radical technology; community technology; soft technology II; alternative technology II; Utopian technology; white technology; careful technology; humane technology; equilibrium technology; alternative technology III; inequality reduction technology; appropriate technology II; rational technology; alternative technology IV.’ According to the same report, “....unfortunately, some of the terms have never been clearly defined; and others may have been defined in one way, but used in another and understood yet in another way.” UNEP (1975) 9

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

But the realization that the indiscriminate transfer of technology from the industrialized countries is not an adequate solution for the developing countries is contained in Gandhi's Sarovaya approach to development as early as 1909 (Herrera, 1981). Gandhi’s contempt for large scale mechanization is well known (Gandhi, 1997 Chap 19, pp. 107-111) and his notion that the transformation of the Indian society should be through a process of organic growth from inside and not through imposition from outside (Herrera, 1981). He believed exploitation in the society and disturbance in the social order will be the consequence of large scale use of machinery (Viswanathan, 1998). He instead supported need based and local community centric approach towards technological activities, which was epitomized as the Charkha 11 (Kumar and Bhaduri, 2009).

Bakker (1990) argued that Gandhi's approach helps to achieve greater equity or ‘distributive justice,’ by promoting technologies that are appropriate to ‘basic needs’ i.e. food, clothing, shelter, health and basic education (Herrera, 1981). He also attempted to connect this Gandhian approach to technological change with his idea of ‘Swadeshi’ it refers to self-reliance starting at the village level, fostering of creative intelligence through the full development of the individual, and use of local knowledge and abilities in day to day life.

11

A Charkha is one form of the spinning wheel. MK Gandhi brought Charkha into larger use through his teaching.

Charkha was believed to be a symbol of self sufficiency during India’s freedom movement, where each household would contribute to making their own clothes by using charkha, and would be rejecting foreign made clothes, in the process. HERRERA, A. (1981) The generation of technologies in rural areas. World development, 9, 21-35.

10

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

2.B. Understanding Appropriate Technology for the 21st century Schumacher described his idea of ‘Intermediate technology’ as follows: “If we define the level of technology in terms of ‘equipment cost per workplace,’ we can call the indigenous technology of a typical developing country symbolically speaking - a £1-technology, while that of the developed countries could be called a £1,000-technology.

The gap between these two technologies is so enormous that a transition from the one to the other is simply impossible. In fact, the current attempt of the developing countries to infiltrate the £1,000-technology into their economies inevitably kills off the £1-technology at an alarming rate, destroying traditional workplaces much faster than modern workplaces can be created, and thus leaves the poor in a more desperate and helpless position than ever before. If effective help is to be brought to those who need it most, a technology is required which would range in some intermediate position between the £1-technology and the £1,000technology. Let us call it - again symbolically speaking - a £100-technology. Such an intermediate technology would be immensely more productive than the indigenous technology (which is often in a condition of decay), but would also be immensely cheaper than the sophisticated, highly capital-intensive technology of modern industry.” (Schumacher, 1973, pp. 169)

A common misconception is that intermediate technology must be inexpensive or represent the ‘least-cost’ solution (Congdon, 1977, Evans, 1979, Ntim, 1988). Despite Schumacher’s insistence that it should employ the ‘best of modern knowledge and experience,’ the term ‘intermediate’ technology has fallen from favor because of its connotations of ‘second best’ (Hollick, 1982). As such, appropriate technology has been interpreted by some as intermediate technology and the thought that appropriate technology is thus second-rate technology has caused reservations in developing countries. Yet, all intermediate technologies are not appropriate and, similarly, all appropriate technologies are not intermediate (Bowonder, 1979).

11

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Ranis (1980) contradicts traditional definitions of AT by insisting that, “the appropriate process for a poor labor surplus economy is not always labor intensive and an appropriate good is not always a basic good.’’ He argues that ATs can be ‘advanced,’ modern, capital intensive, labor intensive, based on domestic or imported core technology, and may or may not make use of extensive local adaptations 12 (Murphy et al., 2009).

The key step for the success of appropriate technology must be to meet the basic needs of the users. Inappropriate technologies are geared towards satisfying wants, pleasures and wishes and not basic needs (Ntim, 1988). At the heart is utilizing local materials to maximize local capabilities and help reduce a community’s dependence on outside sources; thereby reducing the cost of the technology itself 13 (Mitchell, 1980, Rohwedder, 1987, Evans, 1979, Darrow, 1993).

Another essential element to successful development projects is to actively involve the key stakeholders that may be affected by the technology in all aspects of the innovation process (Evans, 1979, UN Report, 2007, Van Wijk-Sijbesma, 1979, Dauber, 1981). This is apparent from various studies that discuss ‘indigenous knowledge’ and participation of local communities to solve local problems (Thrupp, 1989, Herrera, 1981).

Past definitions prescribed that AT should be small-scale, labor intensive, low capital investment per worker, energy efficient, environmentally sound, and controlled and maintained by the local community (Schumacher, 1973, Mitchell, 1980, Smits, 2007). Pellegrini (1979) suggested that a technology should be considered appropriate, "when its introduction into a community creates a self-reinforcing process internal to the same community, which supports the growth of the local activities and the development of indigenous capabilities as decided by the community itself" (pp. 2)

12

The most important consideration is that the cost should closely match the willingness to pay and ability to pay of the

users of that technology.

13

A tool made from local materials by local tradesman will likely be more affordable and sustainable than an imported

tool from the developed world. If a locally made tool should break, it can easily be repaired because the materials and expertise used to make the tool are readily available in the community. On the other hand, an imported technology not made of locally available materials would not be as easy to repair and as a result may become useless to the community.

12

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Appropriate technology cannot be viewed simply as some identifiable technical device when it has evolved into an approach to community development, consisting of a body of knowledge, techniques, and an underlying philosophy (Akubue, 2000). In fact, Dunn (1978) called it a complete systems approach to development that is both self-adaptive and dynamic, because as its users become wealthier and more skilled, they can both afford and use more expensive technical means (Akubue, 2000). The key element of appropriateness in the development context, according to Darrow and Pam (1976), is generating innovation and ‘self-reliance’ at the village level rather than importing mass produced gadgets.

Anil Date (1981) thus describes appropriate technology as a normative concept: “In the sphere of technology, the concept questions the indiscriminate use of massproducing western sophisticated technology and puts new constraints on the activity of production by insisting on the use of local materials and skills for local need and use. On a philosophical plane, appropriate technology relates to the concepts of peace, nonviolence and permanence and stresses dignity and the ethics of work. Within the context of planning, the concept puts the emphasis on both short and long-term policies that will encourage self-reliance, on bringing points of production and consumption (both in space and time) closer, and on decentralization with respect to planning and decision-making within the regional approach...” (Date, 1981, pp. 2)

13

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

2.C. Difficulties with Appropriate Technology The definition of AT is not watertight, causing difficulty with the variety of meaning attached to the concept by different proponents and critiques. It indicates a direction of desirable change rather than a precise description of what constitutes an appropriate technology. Ranis (1980) argues that appropriateness as it relates to technology is redundant. There is no simple or straightforward means for identifying AT; it depends on the available resources, local preferences, time, and place (Murphy et al., 2009). Traditional techniques vary from region to region, so that what is ‘intermediate’ in one country may be traditional in another. For example, the ox-drawn plough is an intermediate technology in most of Africa where it replaces the hand-hoe, but is traditional in the Middle East and Asia (Jequier, 1976).

AT failures are often attributed to the fact that the economic viability of the projects was not sufficiently explored (Darrow, 1993). If the technology is not affordable for the majority of potential users, then it will fail to create any impact making affordability the most challenging constraint in technology development (Murphy et al., 2009).

Much has been learned after more than 30 years since Schumacher first wrote on appropriate technology; the process of achieving AT is far more complex than in the original Schumacher formulation, or in the views of some AT groups. The ‘Small is Beautiful’ debate did not have a substantial impact on mainstream policy which continued to focus on the linear transfer of technology (TOT) and its emphasis on generic technologies (Sonne, 2010). Participatory models were criticized for being a mere label put on a wide range of activities with no clear conceptual foundation 14 (Biggs, 1998). Most of these models concentrated efforts on agricultural activities but recent emphasis has now shifted to non-farm activities with the Rural Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) for Rural Non-Farm Sector (RNFS). According to Start (2001), “the rural non farm sector (RNFS) is a vital part of the rural economy and it is expected that most of the poverty alleviating developments are to come from this rather than the agriculture sector.” 15 14

These methods were often too context dependent as the success of a particular approach appeared more dependent on

specific local history and institutions than the actual methods themselves, or the theoretical model behind it (Biggs and Smith, 1998). As a result, the transfer and diffusion of participatory research methods was not more successful than the leaner technology transfer model of innovation.

15

This is clearly demonstrated in the case studies provided in chapter 4. A direct attempt has been made to mention

innovations coming from the rural non-farm sector (RNFS) but concerning the ‘Grassroots’ innovation movement.

14

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Developmentalists saw technology as the primary solution to alleviate poverty but did not understand the social dimensions around technology transfer and implementation. ‘Technology will not solve all the problems’ is stated fittingly by Bowonder (1979): “Pure technological solutions cannot cure all the maladies, since only some points of view are considered under those conditions. Often the needs of the weakest sections of society are approached in technical terms in such a way that technical solutions are not always possible; or if the solutions are possible, social conditions are such that the benefits of technical change will not acrue to the weakest because of lack of social control. One of the tasks facing appropriate technology practitioners is to identify the needs correctly so that benefits will truly reach the neediest.” 16 (pp. 63)

Schumacher's school came to emphasize engineering and (small-scale) technological solutions, ignoring the social and policy dimensions that are crucial since Schumacher's ideas essentially imply a reorganization of the economy (Sonne, 2010). It begins with improving technology in a given sociocultural environment, extends to economic policies and sooner or later must confront the constraints of political economy (Stewart, 1987b). In many cases, gullibility of research and development fund allocators is being exploited with appropriate technology becoming a new social trap for the elite or institutions; here solutions are assumed and then the problem is approached.

16

For example, introduction of high yielding varieties of cereals cannot solve the food problem of India as such, since

without proper land reforms, proper irrigational facilities, and proper educational and financial support procedures, new agricultural methods cannot permeate to the small farms which form the majority.

15

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

2.D. Conclusions The failure of participative models contains an important view as far as this paper is concerned. Appropriate technology which presupposes participation of local communities, has so far concerned itself with technology transfer, often from the formal sectors of the West to the rural poor. Is this sufficient in the 21st century?

Darrow and Pam (1976) stated: “Appropriate technology is a term that represents a particular view of society and technology.” Hollick (1982) explains the quote, “It suggests that technology is neither neutral nor does it evolve along a single path. It recognizes that different cultural and geographical groups will have different technologies that are appropriate to their circumstances; that technological self-determination is essential to cultural identity (and political independence). It suspects that the only wise technologies are those which seek to accommodate themselves to the biological environment within which they are used. It assumes that the purpose of economically productive activity is to produce what is determined by need, in an enjoyable, creative process; not what is determined by endless greed, in an alienating, repetitive production process. It stresses that every society has a technological tradition and that new technologies must grow out of this tradition. And it presumes that the only development that makes sense is development of the people and their skills, by the people and for the people” (Hollick, 1982).

Then why is it that none discuss using ‘indigenous innovation,’ developed by the marginal communities themselves, without any ‘outside’ help, as a starting point in development of appropriate technologies? Has true ‘organic’ growth in development been accomplished with Schumacher’s ‘appropriate’ technology movement?

Ntim (1988) concludes by describing AT as, ‘‘a concept that puts emphasis on the development of indigenous technological capabilities and as such it offers an effective and complementary path for truly meaningful development in developing countries.”

If the roots of the AT movement were based on Gandhi’s idea of ‘swadeshi’ of self reliance starting at village level and the idea of greater equity or ‘distributive justice,’ then the main aim of this paper is to point out a critical limitation in the AT movement for the 21st century - Does it invariably have to entail a technology transfer, even of appropriate technologies, from the West to the rural poor?

16

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Chapter 3: Methodology

17

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

3.A. Introduction There has been a silent revolution taking place under the name of ‘Grassroots’ innovation (GI) but there have been very few papers that try to associate these ‘rural’ innovations captured under GI to the formal field of AT. The realm of GI rests on technologies and innovations that have been developed / adapted by the rural poor, in an informal and decentralized environment, as will be evident from the case studies that follow.

At this juncture, it is important to identify the two types of entrepreneurs involved in the GI movement 17. Most rural poor are entrepreneurs out of necessity (Lingelbach, 2005) labelled the ‘necessity’ entrepreneurs. They enter into entrepreneurship because of external shocks such as unemployment and therefore are unlikely to have the capacity or willingness to take on risks associated with scaling up their innovations to make a real impact on the rural economy (Sonne, 2010). A few, generally those that are relatively less poor, are ‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs pursuing a profitable business, innovating and looking to grow. They make their own choice to create a venture because of an identified unexplored market niche or business opportunity (Lingelbach, 2005).

These growth focussed entrepreneurs (Lazonick, 2008) are likely to have a large indirect effect on the poor by providing employment opportunities as well as improved goods and services 18 (Sonne, 2010).

This paper therefore considers that both types of entrepreneurs engaged in the GI movement are essential to the continuous development of, and poverty alleviation in, rural areas by creating employment, increasing income and providing improved goods and services.

17

Special thanks goes to Lina Sonne of UNU-MERIT. Email exchanges took place for discussing her article SONNE,

L. (2010) Pro-Poor, Entrepreneur-Based Innovation and it's Role in Rural Development. merit.unu.edu.

18

The difference between opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs suggest a different set of drivers and incentives. For

instance, necessity entrepreneurs may be willing to take less risk compared to opportunity entrepreneurs.

18

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

3.B. Case Study Method The case study gives enough evidence of two main factors: rural communities or individuals have been innovating for survival the ‘necessity’ entrepreneurs (Case Study 1) and; innovating to exploit the gap in the market ‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs (Case Study 2). Also it will assist us in understanding rural innovations covered under the GI movement and how these innovations satisfy the requirements of appropriate technology under the tag of AT ‘locally’ produced.

The case studies have been gathered through primary and secondary data sources. The primary data source includes actual visit to the village where the innovation has occurred and the use of a questionnaire (Appendix 2) given to Professor Anil Gupta, founder of the Honey Bee Network. A meeting was arranged with Professor Gupta and various emails exchanges took place regarding the theme of the paper. The secondary source of data has been obtained with the help of the Honey Bee Network (HBN). The case studies were located using the innovation database at Honey Bee Network 19 and National Innovation Foundation 20 , India. The study highlights the fact that technologies and innovations locally produced by the rural poor are ‘appropriate’ in their own right and yet the link between these two alternative movements has least been theorized.

19

www.honeybee.org

20

www.nif.org.in 19

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

3.C. The Honey Bee Network (HBN) 21 The Honey Bee Network has been the main source of data for the case study. Gupta (2003) describes the network to consists of a database plus members who scout out, develop, sustain, and reward grassroots innovators, without diminishing the value that the invention has for the inventor.

It allows the poor to share their knowledge with other communities and learn from others, amassing a database in their own language (Gupta et al., 2003) “Its aims are as follows: build a new paradigm of development that builds upon what poor people are rich in, i.e. their knowledge; scout, disseminate, add value, reward and compensate, protect their intellectual property rights (IPR); create a knowledge network by connecting innovators so as to promote lateral learning; and transform the mind set in developing countries beginning from India so that people’s creativity and innovative potential becomes touch stone for evaluating the success of various public policies” (SRISTI, 2010, Subba Rao, 2006).

The Honey Bee newsletter, which is being issued in eight different languages (English, Spanish, Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Kannada, Pahari, and Telugu) and in over 75 countries, shares the innovations with local communities and individuals. Gupta (2003) believe by communicating the innovations, a dialogue is created between farmers, scientists, researchers and others with a wide range of backgrounds. The Honey Bee Network started with a simple revelation: creative individuals at the grassroots level can be a source of valuable innovations. It has attempted to help these creative individuals on many levels — from the grassroots level itself to the national political level and extending into international law (Gupta et al., 2003).

Gupta (2003) states that the network is trying to transform the way the knowledge, innovations and sustainable practices — resources in which rural poor are rich, are used in the future. It is trying to articulate the social and the ethical capital of society at the grassroots to demonstrate how local individuals and communities are trying to solve local problems without any outside help (Gupta et al., 2003).

21

Refer to Appendix 1 for more details on the ‘Golden Triangle for Rewarding Creativity’ 20

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

3.D. Limitations of methodology The limitation in collection of qualitative data through primary and secondary sources are discussed here. Due to time and financial constraints, extensive primary survey of the innovation was not feasible. Language is a big barrier in India, thus communicating with the rural communities was a major hurdle. The villages where the innovation occurred were located in remote areas, making transportation difficult. Thus greater emphasis had to be placed on secondary data source like the innovation database found at the Honey Bee Network (HBN) and National Innovation Foundation (NIF) website.

The use of ‘indigenous knowledge’ by the rural poor does not find mention in the study. But it is clear from the innovation database present at HBN, that many contemporary innovations are derived using indigenous knowledge, for example farm implements, use of herbal pesticides etc.

Due to time and space constraints these innovations have not been discussed 22.

It is attempted here to limit the extent of the case study to the theme of linking AT and GI, trying to expand the scope of AT. There are various cases where the connection may not be possible.

A frequent criticism of case study methodology is that its dependence on a single case renders it incapable of providing a generalized conclusion. Yin (1993) presented the view that considered case methodology ‘microscopic’ because it ‘lacked a sufficient number’ of cases. Hamel (1993) and Yin (1984, 1989a, 1989b, 1993, 1994) forcefully argued that the relative size of the sample whether 2, 10, or 100 cases are used, does not transform a multiple case into a macroscopic study. The goal of the study should establish the parameters, and then should be applied to all research. In this way, even a single case could be considered acceptable, provided it met the established objective (Tellis, July, 1997).

22

The paper by SUBBA RAO, S. (2006) Indigenous knowledge organization: An Indian scenario. International Journal

of Information Management. provides a good understanding about indigenous knowledge.

21

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Chapter 4: Case Study 'Grassroots Innovation' or Appropriate Technology LOCALLY produced

22

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

4.A. Case Study 1: Windmill actuated bore-well pumping unit

23

i. Background Looking for a low-cost alternative to pump water in the fields for the winter crops, Mohammad Mehtar Hussain (35) and his younger brother, Mushtaq (31) devised this simple windmill made up of bamboo and tin sheets. Married, with one son, Mehtar lives in a joint family with his widowed mother, one sister and brother. The family owns two acres of land, which the two brothers jointly look after. Both have completed their education up to Higher Secondary Level and since then have been practicing agriculture. They produce just enough paddy for their own consumption, with a little surplus in some seasons.

The main source of income for the family is a pension of about `2,500 per month in the name of his late father, who had retired as a Primary school teacher. Though economically poor, theirs is a happy and close-knit family. The water table is not too deep and drawing water is not easy since electricity supply is erratic and most small farmers cannot afford other means.

ii. Genesis Mehtar and his brother while growing paddy in winter season (also called ‘bodo paddy’), needed irrigation from the well. Continuous pumping by hand involves a lot of effort and drudgery.

At the same time, pumping out water by using diesel sets was a big drain on their resources. He pondered over the problem and looked around for a solution. Drawing on the sewing machine, he noticed that the circular movement of the hand drive wheel caused the upward and downward movement of the needle. This formed an image in his mind, which formed the genesis of the solution.

He concluded that if he could develop a large wheel, which could run on wind power, and connect this wheel (turbine) to the handle of the hand pump, he might pump out water continuously as the turbine rotates.

23

Special thanks to Professor Anil Gupta for providing the details of the innovation. Also the innovation database at

HBN was critical in gathering information for the case study.

23

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Getting a base of available hand pumps to experiment on was not a problem. In the 1990s, National Bank For Agricultural And Rural Development (NABARD) had done a lot of tube well boring in the district, as a part of their subsidy scheme to promote winter cropping and this became the experimentation platform for these brothers.

Both of them then started building a windmill unit, using locally available materials such as bamboo, wood, strips of old tyres, pieces of iron, etc. Although they had never seen a windmill before, they were able to develop the windmill in no time and the first prototype became functional in only four days with the help of a local carpenter. This was possible because the brothers had constructively debated long on the form that they wanted for the turbine and had put down everything on paper.

iii. Innovation The windmill actuated bore-well pumping unit consists of a tall tower structure made of two parallel bamboo posts supported by two inclined bamboo posts each. An iron shaft is mounted on bearings near the top of the tower, ends of which rest on the parallel bamboo posts on either side. At the centre of the shaft, a wind turbine with four blades is mounted. The shaft is connected to the tube well handle on the ground through mechanical linkages (crank lever mechanism).

As the turbine rotates, due to motion of the wind, the shaft also rotates. Through the mechanical linkages, rotary motion of shaft is converted to reciprocating motion of the lever of the hand pump, which in turn pumps water from the tube well continuously. (Fig 1) While the working principle of the windmill is similar to conventional ones; the use of low cost, locally available material instead of costlier metals for the framework, and the direct drive to do automatic pumping of water from the tube well has given it an innovative shape. This entire arrangement is like a portable unit, which can be dismantled in an hour, and then reassembled and connected to a tubewell in another location in almost no time.

Since the supporting framework is made of bamboo, hence, the final product costs only `4500, which is very low as compared to commercially available windmills costing over `40,000.

This device is only used during winter season, for rest of the year it can be kept aside after dismantling. The turbine is preserved while the bamboo is utilized for other tasks.

24

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

It is an environment friendly product with low initial cost, zero operating cost and has great relevance in today's world. Since it is fitted to a tube-well, it meets the needs of light irrigation and potable water too. Doordarshan-NE and NDTV, two television channels in India, aired a small program on his innovation, which resulted in him being approached by a local entrepreneur for possible technology transfer. (It is important to note that this technology transfer is from the informal sector and not from the formal sector as dealt with conventional appropriate technology.)

As far as the scaling up of the innovation is concerned, the innovator is further refining the product by optimizing the number of blades to increase efficiency and improve the product structure. Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT (Guwahati) has been involved in performance evaluation and value addition. This match between the informal sector and the formal sector is critical for such innovations to scale up. 24

Fig 1: Windmill actuated bore-well pumping unit, Darrang, Assam, India 24

Appendix 1 provides more details on how Grassroots Innovation Network (GIN) is involved in scaling up grassroots

innovations.

25

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

4.B. Case Study 2: Mini sanitary napkin making machine Sanitary napkin, a universally needed product, has a very low penetration in India due to the high price and tradition of using cheaper but unhygienic, old cloth pieces. The innovator has developed an assembly of low cost and portable machines that produces quality sanitary napkins. It requires four persons to produce two pads per minute. This machine produces sanitary pads at approximately `1 to `1.50 per pad. The innovator has also improvised a vending machine that can dispense single pads with the insertion of a coin.

i. Background Muruganantham (50) hails from Pudur in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. When he was young, his father Mr. S. Arunachalam, met with a road accident. His mother, Mrs. A. Vanitha, had to turn from a homemaker to a farm worker to support the family. Around this time, he discontinued his studies after finishing his Secondary School Leaving Certificate (commonly referred to as SSLC), to earn a living and assist his family financially. During his formative years in school, he displayed a keen interest in science and astronomy. His science teacher encouraged him to experiment and give birth to new ideas. He had participated in a school science exhibition and won an award for a chicken incubator that he managed to develop. Most of his classmates came from neighboring farms. He spent a lot of time visiting the farms, learning about farm implements and also tried his hand at modifying and repairing them.

For over three decades, he faced economic hardships while trying his hand at various trades to support his family. He worked in various capacities; as a part time technician at Lakshmi Machine Works, Coimbatore, then as a machine operator, insurance agent, farm laborer and yarn selling agent. Currently, he runs his firm, Jayashree industries, which he has built from scratch centered around commercializing his innovation - the mini sanitary napkin machine.

Fig 2: Mini Sanitary napkin dispensing machine 26

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

ii. Genesis of innovation The eye-opener for the innovator was when he realized that millions of women in the country’s rural areas, including his wife, were not able to afford high priced sanitary napkins and thus had to resort to the use of old cloth as a substitute. He decided to develop low cost sanitary napkins that could be used by all sections of society.

Initially, he worked with cotton but could not get the desired result. He then got the commercially available napkins tested in a laboratory and found out that they use wood fiber. He realized that the wood fiber was good in retaining the shape of the pad besides securely draining the fluids. He then procured the raw material from Mumbai that came in the form of sheets and boards.

Next, he set about developing his own de-fibering unit to process the raw material in desired sizes and shapes. Having succeeded in this, he developed the machines for subsequent stages to do the core forming and sealing of napkins. Muruganantham developed the final assembly of machines in 2004. He distributed the first set of samples among his neighbors to get their feedbacks. He got encouraging inputs on its efficacy. Subsequently, he improved on the machine by adding the UV sterilization unit, calibration for various pad sizes and increased the production rate to target 1000 pads per day. (Fig 3) After seeing the ATM in cities, dispensing cash to the customers as required, the innovator decided to build a sanitary napkin dispenser (vending machine) with a coin slot that could be set up in hospitals, colleges and public places to supply napkins on demand. The vending machine was developed in 2008 and has a capacity of 25 pads. (Fig 2)

iii. Product details The semiautomatic mini sanitary napkin making assembly deploys four stages to produce the finished sanitary napkins. The main raw materials used for making a sanitary napkin in this machine include wood fiber; thermo bonded non-woven, polyethylene (for barrier film), release paper, super bond paste & LLDPE 50 GSM (for packing cover).

27

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

In the first stage, the raw material in the form of wood fiber is taken into a de-fiberation unit (36" x 24" x 30"). The raw material is cut up by 4 blades, fitted on a disc at the bottom of a conical vessel, to deliver de-fiberated wood pulp with a filament length of 1 to 1.5 mm. The unit is powered by a 1 HP single-phase motor rotating at 10,000 RPM to deliver the cutting action and deliver soft pulp at the rate of 150 gm per minute.

The second stage involves compressing the de-fibered pulp to the required shape of the napkin. This is done using a core-forming unit (24" x 24" x 30"), operated by a foot pedal. The mould or core block is made of food grade aluminum and facilitates making two kinds of sanitary napkin pads; one with a variable density and the other with constant or equal density. The variable density pads have more density of material at the bottom for better absorption.

The third stage involves sealing the pads in the napkin-finishing machine (36" x 30" x 30"), where they are wrapped with non-woven fabrics such as polypropylene and sealed. The operator uses the foot pedal to power the unit and seal the pads in three sides. The unit is rated at 40 Watts and seals about 4-10 napkins per minute using a cam operated limit switch, which facilitates fast heating and cooling within two-seconds per stroke.

The fourth stage involves passing the sealed pads through a dedicated Sterilization unit. The sterilization can be achieved either by manually exposing the pads to the UV lamp or by batch-type sterilization unit. The sterilization units consist of a closed container with UV lamps. In the UV chamber, sealed pads are sterilized by exposing them for 10 seconds. The UV sterilization is achieved by using short wave Germicidal Erasing Lamps with specific wavelengths between 240 280 nanometers with a peak wavelength of 265 nanometers.

Once the sterilization is complete, the pads are ready for the finishing operations consisting of trimming, position strip fixing, packing and dispatching. The machine can produce over 900 sanitary napkin pads per day, about 4 napkins per minute. It needs a maximum of three people to operate the three main production stages. The rate of production can be enhanced using two coreforming dies. In India expensive imported machines costing over twenty five lakh rupees are used in manufacturing, making the price of the product beyond the reach of women in middle class and lower income groups.

28

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

De-fiberation Machine

Core forming Machine

Napkin finishing Machine

Fig 2: Entire manufacturing unit (Source: Muruganantham, 2009) 29

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

iv. Product application and dispersion This machine heralds a new revolution in personal hygiene for women across all sections of society, while creating a potential perennial revenue stream for small scale entrepreneurs, and Self Help Groups (SHG) by deploying a self-sustaining ‘micro-enterprise’ model. With this machine slowly gaining national recognition, many Self Help Groups, corporates and organizations such as M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, All India Woman's' Conference, DATA, Malabar Hospital, Community Center - AAI Delhi, Mandalk Mahila Samkiya and Sammilana have placed orders for this machine. Local entrepreneurs and SHGs have launched the low cost pads in various trade names (EASY FEEL, FREE STYLE, STYLE FREE, FEEL FREE and BB FREE). These products are available in the local market at an affordable cost range of `13 for a set of 8 pads and `15 for a set of 10 pads.

With the support from the Micro Venture Innovation Fund (MVIF) at National Innovation Foundation (NIF), the innovator has been able to install over eighty units in thirteen states across the country.

The case study gives us enough evidence that the innovations by the rural poor, covered under the GI movement, satisfy most of the essential requirements of AT and are fundamentally appropriate technologies.

Fig 3: Mini sanitary napkin products (Source: Muruganantham, 2009) 30

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Chapter 5: Grassroots Innovation Broadening the scope of Appropriate Technology

31

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

5.A. Understanding ‘Grassroots’ Innovation i. Introduction “No one has ever built a strategy upon a resource in which poor people often are rich...in terms of their knowledge.” (Gupta et al., 2000) The revitalization of local communities was identified as an important goal for a sustainable future (Gupta et al., 2003, Olson, April 1994). Instead of identifying only problems that people have, solutions developed by the people need to be made as the point of departure. This thrust has two positive consequences; it generates (i) humility because these solutions have been generated without any contributions from outsiders, and (ii) respect for the experimental and inventive ethics of the people, who with so little could achieve so much hence imagine what would be their potential in solving problems if the existing constraints could be relaxed! (Gupta, 1996) It is important to understand this alternative movement before drawing any conclusions. There are a couple of definitions of AT that need further mention here, as it will help put grassroots innovation into perspective. Herrera (1981) in his paper, “The generation of rural technologies” defined a ‘technological space,’ which is the set of requirements and constraints that the technology has to satisfy. Any technology which fits that space is appropriate, whether locally produced or imported. This agrees with the fact that AT can be locally produced. The next step is to recognize its importance in the mainstream.

‘New technological combinations’ enabling an economy to depart from its state of circular flow of income, was the conventional definition laid down by Schumpeter (1934). Over the years, the definition of innovation was broadened by scholars like Nathan Rosenberg, Richard Nelson, Sanjaya Lall incorporating ‘minor’ or ‘incremental’ changes in technical combinations into the ambit of innovative activities (Kumar and Bhaduri, 2009). Steward (1987a) states, “...such modified technologies are often categorized as ‘appropriate technologies’” It has been tried to establish here that these ‘modified’ technologies can be produced and/or adapted by the rural poor themselves and in most cases, are inherently appropriate. A strategy of development which does not build upon on what people know and do well, cannot be ethically very sound and professionally very accountable or efficient (Gupta, 2000).

32

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

The role of individuals is as important as that of communities in the GI movement (Gupta et al., 2000). Analysis of the case studies reiterates this point. Innovations have transpired because of individual effort rather than community. However, this does not dilute the fact that innovations can emerge from communities as well. For simplicity, the research is limited to the study of individual innovators under the GI movement.

Thus, the term grassroot refers to individual innovators, who often undertake innovative efforts to solve ‘localized’ problems, and generally work outside the realm of formal organizations like business firms or research institutes. This makes the tools of conventional firm level analyses redundant to explain their behavior (Gupta, 2000). In a rather oversimplified manner, grassroots innovations are regarded as an effective tool to achieve sustainable form of technological change at a societal level (Kumar and Bhaduri, 2009).

Grassroots innovation, like AT, echoes the Gandhian philosophy of technology and social development by the common people. These technologies are not only based on the values of ‘swadeshi’ but also symbolize a process of empowerment through self help (Kumar and Bhaduri, 2009).

ii. Scarcity: from ‘stages’ of to ‘spaces’ for development 25 It is critical then to understand the conditions under which the rural poor tend to innovate and where this stands in the developmental process. This may provide a clue why such ‘modified local innovations’ tend to be sustainable and appropriate. Solutions for urgent and otherwise unsolved problems in developing countries may be provided by the ability to innovate under ‘scarcity’ conditions, which follow idiosyncratic innovative paths and have been least theorized (Srinivas and Sutz, 2008).

25

This sections draws mainly from SRINIVAS, S. & SUTZ, J. (2008) Developing Countries and Innovation: Searching

for a new analytical approach. Technology in society.

33

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Srinivas (2008) 26 argues that a largely mechanical approach to gradual technological accumulation does not properly capture the varied types of actual innovation processes, while it may satisfy the model in economic terms. If this innovation within scarcity conditions is considered to be complementary rather than a competitive path to the more classical ways of technology transfer, and is properly understood and valued, then it can affect, in the long run, in satisfying local needs, and perhaps wider industrial dynamics.

iii. Need for Commercialization The unusual thing about grassroots innovation is that they remain extremely localized — even people in the same village some times do not know about them (Gupta, 2000). This results in an absence of a scalable model. However, lack of diffusion does not mean these innovations lack validity — scalability should not become an enemy of sustainability (Gupta, 2009).

Two types of diffusion and dissemination efforts are required for commercialization of grassroots innovations (Utz and Dahlman, 2007). Simple and low cost innovations, as shown in case study 1, relate to reducing drudgery out of some work. Utz et.al (2007) observed that the cost of diffusing such products is often higher than the cost of the product itself. But because they are simple, low cost, and easy to replicate, such products can have large social impacts on the livelihoods and quality of life of marginalized sections of society 27.

More complex and expensive innovations as shown in case study 2, are related to raising productivity, efficiency and competitiveness. Diffusing these will require significant marketing and commercialization efforts besides explicit efforts to scale up for industrial production (Utz and Dahlman, 2007). The need for developing technology clearing-houses and exchanges to link grassroots innovators, investors, and entrepreneurs, as well as incubators like Grassroots Innovation Augmentation Network (GIAN) is essential 28

, 29

. This linkage can help in market research,

development of business plans, and sourcing of micro-venture capital or risk capital to support innovators in becoming entrepreneurs. (Utz and Dahlman, 2007)

26

Ibid.

27

Ibid.

28

Refer to Appendix 1 (pp. 48) for details on GIAN.

29

Ibid.

34

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

iv. Need for Grassroots innovation Gupta et al. (2000) argues that the higher the stress—whether physical, technological, market, or socioeconomic—the greater the probability that disadvantaged communities and individuals will generate innovative and creative alternatives for resource use.

The GI movement maintains that the entire ‘participatory paradigm’ illustrates that people are participating in plans and programs that outsiders have designed. There is little opportunity for them to articulate ideas of the rural poor with no institutional space where their ingenuity and creativity in solving problems is recognized, respected and rewarded (Gupta, 2000). Gupta (2006) argues that Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) or Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods create a cast of mind which legitimizes a short cut approach to learning and often leads to exploitative modes of relationship with people.

Thus it is argued here that innovations adapted at local level, meant to solve local problems, will be appropriate fundamentally or organically. Once this is recognized, innovations from the rural poor, in the informal sector can be linked to the formal sector of AT. It is restated that innovation cannot be taken as exogenously given but must be developed / adapted in the field itself, pointing out that the distinction between innovation generation and diffusion is a false one (Agarwal, 1983).

Another point to note is the pairing of grassroots innovation to the popular theory of MNC based Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) innovation (Prahalad, 2006) 30 . This is incorrect as far as this paper is concerned. The notion of grassroots innovation can be considered as the endogenous, intrinsic version of Prahalad's external, top down version of BOP innovation (Sonne, 2010).

Although this thesis does not focus, or build, on Prahalad's ideas, Utz and Dahlman (2007) claim a truly inclusive model will be achieved if the BOP strategy works together with appropriate technologies and innovations, whether imported or locally produced. Hence the urge for diversity in technology is important for the 21st century.

30

Bottom of Pyramid (BOP) strategy is based on transfer of external technologies.

35

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

5.B. Diversity in Technology choice It is important to note that both Gandhi and Schumacher believed intermediate technology to be present side by side with western technology, to exist in parallel and not be as an absolute replacement. Akubue (2000) observes, “Gandhi was not uncompromising in his rejection of largescale, capital-intensive industrial enterprises. Modern-sector industrial development, in Gandhi’s view, should supplement and reinforce the development of small-scale industries and agriculture in the hinterland.” 31 There are clear signs that the economic and ecological balance can be restored using the local knowledge the poor have accumulated (Gupta, 2000). However, sometimes the coping strategies of the poor are inadequate to satisfy basic needs, educate their children and generate sustainable employment opportunities (Gupta, 2000) the solutions they find need not always be optimal.

Agarwal (1983) observed, “…the prototype of the innovation can be obtained from the users themselves and then given sophistication by the scientist in the laboratory. They argue that users often generate innovations or undertake innovative adaptations, which might lack technical sophistication, but which are significant in that they directly manifest user’s needs, and embody a store of indigenous knowledge and skills which should be brought into use.” (pp. 361)

There remains an opportunity for value addition and improvement in efficiency and effectiveness (Gupta, 2001). So far the AT movement has helped address this issue in transforming rural technologies and coping strategies deemed to be inadequate to appropriate levels.

Invariably such opportunities will exist and it is critical that conventional transfer of generic and appropriate technologies takes place as a complementary path to the GI movement, to solve problems occurring in different contexts. 32

31

The case of the rise of some South Asian economies like South Korea, Taiwan etc, are an exemption rather than a

rule.

32

Work done by the Intermediate Technology Group provides good examples like mirco-hydro power, use of ICTs etc.

This can be referred to at www.practicalaction.org 36

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

5.C. Conclusion “The minds on the margin are not the marginal minds.” (Gupta, 2009) Grassroots innovations are the best way to understand the problems of poor. Their needs have to be met effectively in terms of efficiency, quality and cost. Second quality outputs are not the answer to the problem. Also, solutions ‘by’ the poor people need not centre around being cheaper, or some kind of make shift arrangement. They have to be better, more efficient and affordable, all at the same time.

The aim of Schumacher’s theory was poverty alleviation through technology choice that was appropriate. Emphasis on the desirability of close interaction with, and involvement of, the final user in the innovation process (Sonne, 2010) is a basic minimum. The AT movement, so far, has only concentrated on technologies and innovations that have been devised and transfered from formal sectors of the West. This transfer, whether generic or appropriate, has not proved to be an end to end solution. It is argued here that Schumacher’s so called ‘indigenous’ technology, has to be considered as the source a point of departure for the innovation process, instead of only a sink for aid and advice.

Proponents of appropriate technology movement like Pellegrini (1979) and Ntim (1988) subscribed various changes supporting growth of local activities and the development of indigenous capabilities. Darrow and Pam (1976) stressed that every society has a technological tradition and that new technologies must grow out of this tradition. The evolution of these definitions help point out a significant shortcoming in the AT movement for the 21st century.

The importance placed on indigenous locally adapted and developed innovations has been lacking in the conventional AT movement. There has been no clear attempt to understand the innovations and technologies already in use by the marginal communities. ‘Grassroots’ innovation movement rests on the principle that a large mass of poor people have to be inventive to survive.

Local individuals and tribal communities have long met challenges by drawing on their local environments; harsh conditions have done as much to induce individual creativity and innovation as to limit them (Gupta, 2006).

37

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Innovations and technologies from the West have been adapted by the rural poor, to be fundamentally and inherently appropriate and in the process solved local problems, without any ‘outside’ help. The use of case study methodology helps to illustrate this view.

The case studies clearly point out the opportunity that exits in recognizing rural innovations.

Marginal communities and individuals’ ability to innovate in ‘scarcity’ conditions has given birth to technologies and innovations occurring in an informal decentralized environment, which are extremely localized, but scalability should not become an enemy of sustainability (Gupta, 2009).

The main theme of this paper has been to point out that diversity in technology choice is important there will always be place for conventional generic, appropriate and appropriate ‘locally’ produced technologies to coexist. Innovation benefits rural India in different ways including better products, services and livelihood opportunities. It is argued here that grassroots innovation needs to be seen as a complementary space to appropriate technology, rather than mutually exclusive or competitive.

Without challenging the centrality of the AT movement, the paper laments the need to go beyond just ‘participation’ of all stakeholders and superficial understanding of indigenous knowledge. The existence of an inclusive endogenous innovation model that promotes diversity in technology will help expand the crucible of creativity and this is critical to poverty alleviation in developing countries in the 21st century.

38

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

5.D. Limitations and Future Research Critics of the GI movement point out that not all of the scientific analysis of grassroots innovation is positive. Scientists are skeptical and their approach to problem solving is different from local experts; the latter have a symbolic language through which they communicate their understanding of a problem (Gupta, 2001). The paper claims that many scientists and policy makers do not appreciate this style of communication because they are accustomed to more precision. They often jump to the conclusion that such informal symbolic knowledge involves more “mumbo jumbo” than actual skill 33. In some cases, this might be so, but it would be unfair to generalize this over entire bodies of traditional knowledge (Gupta, 2001).

Another issue is related to intellectual property rights any attempt to craft a traditional knowledge Intellectual Property Right (IPR) framework that rewards functional knowledge from traditional communities, will require revolutionary thinking and bold experimentation in both legislation and administration (Utz and Duhlman, 2007). Consideration should be given to creating an IPR policy think tank 34 . Due to space constraints, the paper does not mention IPR issues surrounding grassroots innovation. The work of Gupta (2001) and Utz and Duhlman (2007) is recommended for the same.

The discussion of the Grassroots innovation movement has been limited to rural India due to space constraints. Clearly, poverty problems exist elsewhere and it is interesting to look at the work done by the Honey Bee Network in other parts of the world. (Appendix 1) Further research should be focussed on how a similar inclusive model can be developed in other developing countries, given that characteristics of indigenous knowledge and problems will vary from region to region.

The rural poor face a myriad of different problems although dilemma is not unique, the solution has to be unique. Since grassroots innovation are extremely localized, horizontal and vertical market integration, with the help of micro-venture funds, is important if they are to be seen as a complementary path to generic and appropriate technologies. Hence the idea of having a ‘long tail’ model for innovation needs to be developed and further research needs to be put into this area to achieve a ‘Grassroots to Global’ (G2G model) scale up.

33

Ibid.

34

Ibid.

39

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Bibliography: The United Nations (UN). The millennium development goal report 2007. Available from: <http:// www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/mdg2007.pdf>.

AGARWAL, B. (1983) Diffusion of rural innovations: some analytical issues and the case of woodburning stoves. World Development.

AKUBUE, A. (2000) Appropriate technology for socioeconomic development in third world countries. The Journal of Technology Studies.

BAKKER, J. H. (1990) The Gandhian Approach to Swadeshi or Appropriate Technology: A Conceptualization in Terms of Basic Needs and Equity. Journal of Agricultural Ethics, , 3 (1), pp. 50-88.

BIGGS, S., AND CLAY, EJ (1981) Sources of Innovation in Agricultural Technology. World Development, 9, 321-336.

BIGGS, S., AND SMITH, G (1998) Beyond Methodologies: Coalition-Building for Participatory Technology Development. World Development, 26, 239-248.

BOWONDER, B. (1979) Appropriate technology for developing countries: some issues.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 15, 55-67.

CONGDON, R. J. (1977) Introduction to appropriate technology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; toward a simpler life-style.

Emmaus: Rodale Press.

DARROW, K., AND R. PAM (1976) Appropriate Technology Sourcebook Stanford: Volunteers in Asia, Inc. DARROW, K., SAXENIAN, M (1993) Appropriate technology sourcebook. Stanford, USA: Volunteers in Asia.

DATE, A. (1981) Understanding Appropriate Technology. METHODS OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: Scenarios, Models and Micro-Studies, Eds: Sam Cole, Liliana Acero and Howard Rush. Paris, UNESCO Press.

DAUBER, R., CAIN, ML (1981) Women and technological change in developing countries.

Boulder, USA: Westview Press, Inc. DUNN, P. D. (1978) Appropriate technology-Technology with a human face, New York, Schoken Books.

EVANS, D. (1979) Appropriate technology and its role in development. In: Adler LN, Evans DD, editors. Appropriate technology for development: a discussion of case histories, Boulder, Westview Press. 1979, pp. 3â&#x20AC;&#x201C;78.

FREEMAN, C. (1987) Technology policy and economic performance : Lessons from Japan, London, Pinter Publishers: New York.

GANDHI, M. (1997) Hind Swaraj and Other Writings. In Parel, A.J (Ed) M.K Gandhi : Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. GORE, A. (1992) Earth in the balance: Ecology and the human spirit. New York: Plume Edition.

40

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

GRIEVE, R. (2004) Appropriate technology in a globalizing world. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 3, 173-188.

GUPTA, A. (1996) Roots of Creativity and Innovation in Indian Society: A Honey Bee Perspective.

Published in Wastelands News, Vol. XII pp. 37-68 GUPTA, A. (2000) Grassroots innovations for survival. LEISA India, Vol. 2, 20-21.

GUPTA, A. (2001) Framework for rewarding indigenous knowledge in developing countries: Value chain for grassroots innovations. WTO Expert Committee, 3.

GUPTA, A. (2006) From Sink to Source: The Honey Bee Network Documents Indigenous Knowledge and Innovations in India. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1, 49-66.

GUPTA, A. (2009) India's hidden hotbed of invention. Technology Education and Design (TED).

Mysore, India, TED. GUPTA, A., KOTHARI, B. & PATEL, K. (2000) Networking Knowledge-Rich, Economically Poor People.

GUPTA, A., SINHA, R., KORADIA, D., PATEL, R. & PARMAR, M. (2003) Mobilizing grassroots' technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical capital HAMEL, J., DUFOUR, S., & FORTIN, D (1993) Case study methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

HERRERA, A. (1981) The generation of technologies in rural areas. World development, 9, 21-35.

HOLLICK, M. (1982) The appropriate technology movement and its literature: A retrospective.

Technology in society, 4, 213-229.

JEQUIER, N. (1976) Appropriate Tecbnohgy: Problems and Promises, Paris: OECD, 1976.

KLINE, S., AND ROSENBERG, N (1986) An overview of innovation. In Landau, R and Rosenberg, N, (eds)The positive sum strategy, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

KULDEEP, M., . AND SINHA, R. ( 2006) Pro-Poor Innovations. . Background paper commissioned by South Asia Finance and Private Sector Development, World Bank, Washington, DC. KUMAR, H. & BHADURI, S. (2009) Does socio-economic environment shape motivation to innovate? A Study of 'Grassroot Innovators' in India. merit.unu.edu.

LAZONICK, W. (2008) Entrepreneurial Ventures and the Development State: Lessons from the Advanced Economies. UNU-WIDER Discussion Paper. Helsinki : UNU-WIDER. LINGELBACH, D., DE LA VINA, L, AND ASEL, P (2005) What's Distinctive about GrowthOriented Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries? Centre for Global Entrepreneurship Working Paper. San Antonio, Texas : UTSA College of Business.

LUNDVALL, B. (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers.

MITCHELL, R. (1980) Experiences in appropriate technology. Ottawa: The Canadian Hunger Foundation.

41

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

MURPHY, H., MCBEAN, E. & FARAHBAKHSH, K. (2009) Appropriate technology-A comprehensive approach for water and sanitation in the developing world. Technology in society, 31, 158-167.

MURUGANANTHAM, A. (2009) Project Proposal for NGOs Social Initiatives and CSR Initiatives: Mini Sanitary Napkin Manufacturing Unit.

NELSON, R. (1993) National innovation system: a comparative analysis, New York, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

NTIM, B. (1988) Introduction In: Buatsi S, editor. Technology transfer – nine case studies, London, UK: IT Publications. 1988, pp. vii.

OLSON, R. (April 1994) Technology For A Sustainable Future: A National Dialogue on Environmentally Advanced Technology, Institute for Alternative Futures, (108 N Alfred St; 703/684-5880).

PELLEGRINI, U. (1979) The problem of appropriate technology, In A. De Giorgio & C. Roveda (Eds.); Criteria for selecting appropriate technologies under different cultural, technical and social conditions, New York, Pergamon Press. (pp. 1-5).

PRAHALAD, C. (2006) The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River.

RANIS, G. (1980) Appropriate technology and the development process. In: Long FA, Oleson A, editors Appropriate technology and social values – a critical appraisal. Cambridge, USA, Ballinger Publishing Company.

ROHWEDDER, W. (1987) Ph.D. dissertation: appropriate technology in transition: an organizational analysis. University of California, Berkeley.

ROSTOW, W. (1960) The stages of economic growth : A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge University Press.

SCHUMACHER, E. (1973) Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered, New York, Harper & Row. SCHUMACHER, E. (1999) Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered: 25 years later...with commentaries, Hartley & Mark Inc. SCHUMPETER, J. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge: Harvard Univerisity Press, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961).

SIMANIS, E. & HART, S. (2008) The Base of the Pyramid Protocol. innovations, 57.

SMITS, S., MORIARTY, P., FONSECA, C. AND SCHOUTEN, T. (2007) Scaling up innovations through learning alliances: An introduction to the approach. In: Smits S, Moriarty C, Sijbesma C, editors. Learning alliances: Scaling up innovations in water, sanitation and hygiene, p. 3–18.

SONNE, L. (2010) Pro-Poor, Entrepreneur-Based Innovation and it's Role in Rural Development. merit.unu.edu.

SRINIVAS, S. & SUTZ, J. (2008) Developing Countries and Innovation: Searching for a new analytical approach. Technology in society.

42

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

SRISTI (2010) Honey bee network: Knowledge network for augmenting grassroots innovations. http://www.sristi.org/knownetgrin.html START, D. (2001) The Rise and Fall of the Rural Non-farm Economy: Poverty Impacts and Policy Options. Development Policy Review, 19, 491-505.

STEWART, F. (1987a) Macro-policies for Appropriate Technology in Developing Countries, Westview Press: Boulder.

STEWART, F. (1987b) The case for appropriate technology: a reply to RS Eckaus. Issues in Science and Technology.

SUBBA RAO, S. (2006) Indigenous knowledge organization: An Indian scenario. International Journal of Information Management.

TELLIS, W. (July, 1997) Introduction to Case Study. The Qualitative Report.

THRUPP, L. (1989) Legitimizing local knowledge: From displacement to empowerment for Third World people. Agriculture and Human Values.

UTZ, A. & DAHLMAN, C. (2007) Promoting Inclusive Innovation (India). Unleashing India's Innovation VAN WIJK-SIJBESMA, C. (1979) Participation and education in community water supply and sanitation programs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a literature review. The Hague, The Netherlands: IRC. VARMA, R. (2003) EF Schumacher: Changing the Paradigm of Bigger Is Better. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 23, 114.

V I S WA N AT H A N , S . ( 1 9 9 8 ) h t t p : / / w w w. u n c . e d u / ~ a p a r i c i o / WA N / L i b r o WA N / VisvanathanFinal.doc.

YIN, R. (1984) Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publisher.

YIN, R. (1989a) Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

YIN, R. (1989b) Interorganizational partnerships in local job creation and job training efforts.

Washington, DC: COSMOS Corp.

YIN, R. (1993) Applications of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

YIN, R. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

43

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Abbreviations: Appropriate technology

AT

Grassroots innovation

GI

Transfer of technology

TOT

Honey Bee Network

HBN

National Innovation Foundation

NIF

National Bank For Agricultural And Rural

NABARD

Development Secondary School Leaving Certificate

SSLC

Self help groups

SHG

Micro Venture Innovation Fund

MVIF

Grassroots Innovation Augmentation Network

GIAN

Rapid Rural Appraisal

RRA

Participatory Rural Appraisal

PRA

Bottom of the Pyramid

BOP

Intellectual Property Right

IPR

Society for Research and Initiatives for

SRISTI

Sustainable Technologies and Institutions Prior informed consent

PIC

Grassroots Green Innovations local language

GILD

database Gyan Manthan Kendra

GMK

Grassroots Innovations Design Studio

GRIDS

Scientific and Industrial Research Organization

SIRO

Small Industries Development Bank of India

SIDBI

44

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Appendix 1: Grassroots Innovation Network

45

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

1. Honey Bee Network (HBN) and Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI) The HBN consists of innovators (individuals, farmers, and entrepreneurs), policy makers, academics, and NGOs committed to recognizing and rewarding innovative ideas and traditional knowledge produced at the grassroots level (by individuals and communities) through local language interfaces. It seeks to protect the intellectual property rights of knowledge holders and follow the conditions they may advise under the concept of prior informed consent (PIC).

SRISTI was created in 1993 as a voluntary organization to provide financial and institutional backing to the HBN 35 . The key objectives of SRISTI thus are to strengthen the capacity of grassroots level innovators and inventors engaged in conserving biodiversity to (a) protect their intellectual property rights, (b) experiment to add value to their knowledge (c) evolve entrepreneurial ability to generate returns from this knowledge and (d) enrich their cultural and institutional basis of dealing with nature. The scope of the Honey Bee Network expanded in 1993 with the founding of SRISTI. While the network does not receive outside funding, in the past SRISTI has received limited funds from the International Development Research Centre of Canada, the World Bank, the Global Environmental Facility, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, India’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Government of India.

SRISTI has organized 17 Shodh Yatras (journeys of exploration) and developed a multimedia, multilanguage database using graphics, photographs, and other audiovisuals. It manages KnowNet Grin—an electronic knowledge network of grassroots innovators, and GILD (Grassroots Green Innovations local language database). It has developed a multimedia kiosk node at the IIMAhmadabad: Gyan Manthan Kendra (GMK), village knowledge churning center to connect innovators across language and cultural barriers. At the international level, SRISTI has organized scouting contests, with awards given to grassroots innovators from China, India, and Vietnam.

SRISTI has also focused on women’s knowledge systems through the Sadbhav - SRISTI Sansodhan Lab—the Natural Product Lab. The major products that have been successful in the scheme of value addition include development of botanical pesticides and growth promoters and health healing formulations.

35

www.sristi.org 46

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Fig 4: SRISTI Mission (Source: Gupta 2006)

47

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

2. Grassroots Innovation Augmentation Network (GIAN) GIAN was developed in 1997 with seed money from the Gujarat government to link innovations, investment, and enterprises so that benefits could be shared widely among the community 36 . GIAN provides small amounts of funding for prototype development, facilitates links between innovators and scientific and technological institutions, and identifies commercial enterprises interested in licensing product technologies from grassroots innovators. GIAN has established the Grassroots Innovations Design Studio (GRIDS) at the National Institute of Design, Ahmadabad, and has been recognized as a Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (SIRO).

About 18 technologies have been licensed and benefits shared with innovators under the PIC framework. GIAN has facilitated the development of more than 61 enterprise efforts to manufacture and market innovations, and has filed 67 patents and 3 design registrations; 2 patents and 1 design registration have been granted. It has filed seven patents in the United States—three have been granted. A Patent Assistance Cell at GIAN West has been established to assist small and medium innovators. GIAN has arranged for micro venture finance and incubation support for more than 60 innovations. GIAN West was the joint winner of the National Award for Technology Business Incubator in 2003, and one of the technologies it incubated—the cotton stripper machine—received an award (Kuldeep, 2006, Utz and Dahlman, 2007).

3. National Innovation Foundation (NIF) The work of the HBN and SRISTI has been the model for the NIF, set up by DST with an initial grant of about $5 million 37 . It is a formal effort to document grassroots innovations and traditional knowledge, and has a repository of more than 50,000 practices. It received a Micro Venture Innovation Fund (MVIF) of about $1 million with the help of SIDBI (Small Industries Development Bank of India), but so far it has disbursed only about $54,000. The MVIF has made availability of risk capital a bit easier, but there remains a gap with the lack of the establishment of a dedicated fund for product development. Of the tens of thousands of grassroots innovations and traditional knowledge products scouted by NIF, few have been incubated. Ideally, NIF should plan to incubate at least 2,000 projects to obtain 20–30 major products—of which 2 or 3 may achieve major success (Kuldeep, 2006, Utz and Dahlman, 2007).

36

www.gian.org

37

www.nifindia.org 48

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

4. Networking Knowledge-Rich, Economically Poor People 38

Fig 5: Golden Triangle for Rewarding Creativity ( Source: Gupta et al., 2000)

Fig 6: Knowledge Network Multimedia and Textual Database (Source : Gupta et al., 2000)

38

GUPTA, A., KOTHARI, B. & PATEL, K. (2000) Networking Knowledge-Rich, Economically Poor People.

49

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Fig 7: Framework for Understanding and Augmenting Grassroots Innovations (Source : Gupta et al., 2000)

50

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Appendix 2: Questionnaire

51

MSc Innovation & Technology Management

Questions: 39 ★

Does Schumacher’s ‘Intermediate Technology’ hold true in the 21st century? If yes, in

what way? ★

Are there any shortcomings in the AT movement?

★

What are Grassroots innovations? And why are they important today?

★

Do you think the AT movement concentrates enough on Grassroots innovations/

knowledge with its evolution from focussing on ‘technologies’ and ‘engineering’ based solutions to now incorporating context specific solutions? ★

Is there is link between Grassroots innovation movement started by you and the AT

movement that was popularized by Schumacher but had it’s root in Gandhiji’s Sarovaya approach to development as early as 1909?

• If yes, what is the link and why is it important to recognize this? Can we then say Grassroots innovations is a subset of the AT movement? Can Grassroots innovation be given the tag of Appropriate Technology ‘LOCALLY’ produced? Does AT need to thus broaden its scope to integrate these rural innovations as an important part in its literature and success?

• If no, then how and why is it different? ★

Can you give me 2 examples of Grassroots innovation- one where the innovation was

from a ‘necessity’ entrepreneur (innovating for survival) and one from an ‘opportunity’ entrepreneur (innovating looking at the gap in the market) ★

Have you heard about Pro-poor, Entrepreneur based innovations (PEBI) with

organizations like Aavishkaar, Villgro and S3IDF? How is this different from Grassroots innovations movement and your views on the same? ★

In the 21st century, diversity in technology choice is of great importance. Please

comment. ★

39

Is the need for an inclusive endogenous innovation model the call of the hour?

Submitted on Thursday, 5th August 2010, to Professor Anil Gupta, anilg@iimahd.ernet.in 52