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

10. QUESTIONS PLEASE
10

11. THANKS
11