Structural immunity to technology diffusion in nepal
1. Structural Immunity and Technology Diffusion in Nepal:
Planned Technology and Unplanned Adaptation
Raj Kumar Bhattarai
Nepal Commerce Campus
Faculty of Management
Tribhuvan University
raj.bhattarai@outlook.com
1
2. The parable
Technology planners, carriers, and adopters develop immunity
Congruence between planned technology and planned
adaptation is essential
Structural setting and technology diffusion are reciprocals
2
3. Technology planning context in Nepal
Absence of technology planning before 1956
Continuation of technology planning from 1956
More than a half-century long planned technology
No more changes in the contents and discourses of technology
planning priorities
Continuity in reappearances of the technology planning priorities in
one after another periodic plans from 1956 to the year 2010
No significant achievement in the process of technology development
and diffusion in the country
3
4. Statement of the problem
What were the technology planning priorities and structural
settings during the planned economic efforts of more than 50
years in Nepal?
How well the technology planning priorities and structural
setting aligned for the technology diffusion in Nepal?
4
5. Methods
Overview of 5849 plus pages of the periodic plan and review
documents of Nepal (1956 to 2010)
Overview of the structural/organizational setting for the
technology diffusion as envisaged in the plan documents
Interviews with opinion leaders from the
structural/organizational settings
Contents/discourse analysis and triangulation of the contents
and discourses with intuitive evaluation
5
6. Data sources for the content/discourse analysis
Planning priorities in the 12 periodic planning and review
documents (1956-2013)
Priorities and focused areas of the country’s technology
policies and acts
Functional areas and objectives of the selected organizations
Response of the opinion leaders
6
7. Discussion
Agricultural technology prioritized but farmers’ were working with
their own ways of cultivating, farming, and harvesting
Promotion/development of indigenous/local technology
emphasized but there was no more assessment of its mechanisms
Developmental projects based on foreign assistance but there was
NO use of indigenous/local technology
Information Technology (IT) development and adaptation
intended but there were no more efforts of integrating IT in agriculture,
manufacturing, and service industries
Technological development was highly intended but there was no
regulator for guiding and facilitating in the area
7
8. Structural setting for technology diffusion
TECHNOL
OGY
DIFFUSIO
N
Regulato
ry
Organizi
ng
culture
Industry
and
services
Agricultu
re
Educatio
n and IT
Complia
nce
9. Conclusion: structural immunity to technology diffusion
Agriculture sector immunity: The farmers were habitual with
traditional technology/processes and they were unable to adopt
new technology in absence of socioeconomic compatibility
Industrial sector immunity: There was incompatibility with
hardware, software, brainware, know-how and know-why
Educational sector immunity: The instructors and students both
were uncomfortable with the new course contents and the teaching
pedagogy
Governmental sector immunity: Government officials were
more authoritarian instead of cooperative consultant
Organizing cultural sector immunity: Solidarity was
mechanistic with a rigid authority hierarchy in parallel of national
planning priorities
Compliance sector immunity: Good (corporate) governance 9