The limits of leapfrogging

[Owen Densmore]

The economist has a thought provoking article on the limits of  
leapfrogging:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10650775
.. and attached for convenience.

The idea is that, although in a few cases new technologies can be  
deployed in developing countries .. and sometimes better than the  
developed countries, new technologies often depend on older ones, thus  
cannot easily be deployed by leapfrogging the older ones.

     -- Owen

MOBILE phones are frequently held up as a good example of technology's  
ability to transform the fortunes of people in the developing world.  
In places with bad roads, few trains and parlous land lines, mobile  
phones substitute for travel, allow price data to be distributed more  
quickly and easily, enable traders to reach wider markets and  
generally make it easier to do business. The mobile phone is also a  
wonderful example of a ?leapfrog? technology: it has enabled  
developing countries to skip the fixed-line technology of the 20th  
century and move straight to the mobile technology of the 21st. Surely  
other technologies can do the same?

Alas, the mobile phone turns out to be rather unusual. Its very nature  
makes it an especially good leapfrogger: it works using radio, so  
there is no need to rely on physical infrastructure such as roads and  
phone wires; base-stations can be powered using their own generators  
in places where there is no electrical grid; and you do not have to be  
literate to use a phone, which is handy if your country's education  
system is in a mess. There are some other examples of leapfrog  
technologies that can promote development?moving straight to local,  
small-scale electricity generation based on solar panels or biomass,  
for example, rather than building a centralised power-transmission grid
?but there may not be very many.

Indeed, as a recent report from the World Bank points out (see  
article), it is the presence of a solid foundation of intermediate  
technology that determines whether the latest technologies become  
widely diffused. It is all too easy to forget that in the developed  
world, the 21st century's gizmos are underpinned by infrastructure  
that often dates back to the 20th or even the 19th. Computers and  
broadband links are not much use without a reliable electrical supply,  
for example, and the latest medical gear is not terribly helpful in a  
country that lacks basic sanitation and health-care facilities. A  
project to provide every hospital in Ethiopia with an internet  
connection was abandoned a couple of years ago when it became apparent  
that the lack of internet access was the least of the hospitals'  
worries. And despite the clever technical design of the $100 laptop,  
which is intended to bring computing within the reach of the world's  
poorest children, sceptics wonder whether the money might be better  
spent on schoolrooms, teacher training and books.

The World Bank's researchers looked at 28 examples of new technologies  
that achieved a market penetration of at least 5% in the developed  
world, and found that 23 of them went on to manage a penetration of  
over 50%. Once early adopters latch onto something new and useful, in  
other words, the rest of the population can quickly follow. The  
researchers then considered 67 new technologies that had achieved a 5%  
penetration in the developing world, and found that only six of them  
went on to reach 50%. That suggests that although new technologies are  
often adopted by a small minority of people in poor countries, they  
then fail to achieve widespread diffusion, so their benefits do not  
become more generally available.

Lavatories before laptops
The World Bank concludes that a country's capacity to absorb and  
benefit from new technology depends on the availability of more basic  
forms of infrastructure. This has clear implications for development  
policy. Building a fibre-optic backbone or putting plasma screens into  
schools may be much more glamorous than building electrical grids,  
sewerage systems, water pipelines, roads, railways and schools. It  
would be great if you could always jump straight to the high-tech  
solution, as you can with mobile phones. But with technology, as with  
education, health care and economic development, such short-cuts are  
rare. Most of the time, to go high-tech, you need to have gone medium-
tech first.

[Phil Henshaw-2]

That's relates to the basic learning process constraints for complex
systems.  Local economies require a learning path in order to change by
developmental processes.  Leap-frogging is actually introducing part of
a foreign product ecology in an undeveloped one, and may frequently
disable the development of the home 'product space', as you now see the
results of in Kenya and most other stumbling African communities.
These tragedies of misguided development are the product of
'leap-frogging' for the global resource markets begun by the colonial
powers, leaving population growth without population development behind.


This evolution of 'product space' view is not well studied yet, but
there is one guy with better data than anyone else.  That's Ricardo
Haussman at Harvard who developed the 'product space' economic ecology
learning path idea using network science.  It helps demonstrate that
what developing countries need (as contrasted to outside investors) is
technologies that are naturally connected to their present knowledge
networks, not disconnected from them.  

Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:55 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] The limits of leapfrogging
>
>
> The economist has a thought provoking article on the limits of  
> leapfrogging:
> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10650775
> .. and attached for convenience.
>
> The idea is that, although in a few cases new technologies can be  
> deployed in developing countries .. and sometimes better than the  
> developed countries, new technologies often depend on older
> ones, thus  
> cannot easily be deployed by leapfrogging the older ones.
>
>      -- Owen
>
> MOBILE phones are frequently held up as a good example of
> technology's  
> ability to transform the fortunes of people in the developing world.  
> In places with bad roads, few trains and parlous land lines, mobile  
> phones substitute for travel, allow price data to be
> distributed more  
> quickly and easily, enable traders to reach wider markets and  
> generally make it easier to do business. The mobile phone is also a  
> wonderful example of a ?leapfrog? technology: it has enabled  
> developing countries to skip the fixed-line technology of the 20th  
> century and move straight to the mobile technology of the
> 21st. Surely  
> other technologies can do the same?
>
> Alas, the mobile phone turns out to be rather unusual. Its
> very nature  
> makes it an especially good leapfrogger: it works using radio, so  
> there is no need to rely on physical infrastructure such as
> roads and  
> phone wires; base-stations can be powered using their own generators  
> in places where there is no electrical grid; and you do not
> have to be  
> literate to use a phone, which is handy if your country's education  
> system is in a mess. There are some other examples of leapfrog  
> technologies that can promote development?moving straight to local,  
> small-scale electricity generation based on solar panels or biomass,  
> for example, rather than building a centralised
> power-transmission grid
> ?but there may not be very many.
>
> Indeed, as a recent report from the World Bank points out (see  
> article), it is the presence of a solid foundation of intermediate  
> technology that determines whether the latest technologies become  
> widely diffused. It is all too easy to forget that in the developed  
> world, the 21st century's gizmos are underpinned by infrastructure  
> that often dates back to the 20th or even the 19th. Computers and  
> broadband links are not much use without a reliable
> electrical supply,  
> for example, and the latest medical gear is not terribly
> helpful in a  
> country that lacks basic sanitation and health-care facilities. A  
> project to provide every hospital in Ethiopia with an internet  
> connection was abandoned a couple of years ago when it became
> apparent  
> that the lack of internet access was the least of the hospitals'  
> worries. And despite the clever technical design of the $100 laptop,  
> which is intended to bring computing within the reach of the world's  
> poorest children, sceptics wonder whether the money might be better  
> spent on schoolrooms, teacher training and books.
>
> The World Bank's researchers looked at 28 examples of new
> technologies  
> that achieved a market penetration of at least 5% in the developed  
> world, and found that 23 of them went on to manage a penetration of  
> over 50%. Once early adopters latch onto something new and
> useful, in  
> other words, the rest of the population can quickly follow. The  
> researchers then considered 67 new technologies that had
> achieved a 5%  
> penetration in the developing world, and found that only six of them  
> went on to reach 50%. That suggests that although new
> technologies are  
> often adopted by a small minority of people in poor countries, they  
> then fail to achieve widespread diffusion, so their benefits do not  
> become more generally available.
>
> Lavatories before laptops
> The World Bank concludes that a country's capacity to absorb and  
> benefit from new technology depends on the availability of
> more basic  
> forms of infrastructure. This has clear implications for development  
> policy. Building a fibre-optic backbone or putting plasma
> screens into  
> schools may be much more glamorous than building electrical grids,  
> sewerage systems, water pipelines, roads, railways and schools. It  
> would be great if you could always jump straight to the high-tech  
> solution, as you can with mobile phones. But with technology,
> as with  
> education, health care and economic development, such short-cuts are  
> rare. Most of the time, to go high-tech, you need to have
> gone medium-
> tech first.
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

[scaganoff]

A corrollary to this is that ignoring technologies may choke off
access to new industries. Australia has (by choice?) no manufacturing
facilities for computer chips. But a lot of the new advances in
biotech builds on silicon chip technologies. A lesson for govts who
think they can pick "winners" vs "losers"

On 2/15/08, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> The economist has a thought provoking article on the limits of
> leapfrogging:
> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10650775
> .. and attached for convenience.
>
> The idea is that, although in a few cases new technologies can be
> deployed in developing countries .. and sometimes better than the
> developed countries, new technologies often depend on older ones, thus
> cannot easily be deployed by leapfrogging the older ones.
>
>      -- Owen
>
> MOBILE phones are frequently held up as a good example of technology's
> ability to transform the fortunes of people in the developing world.
> In places with bad roads, few trains and parlous land lines, mobile
> phones substitute for travel, allow price data to be distributed more
> quickly and easily, enable traders to reach wider markets and
> generally make it easier to do business. The mobile phone is also a
> wonderful example of a "leapfrog" technology: it has enabled
> developing countries to skip the fixed-line technology of the 20th
> century and move straight to the mobile technology of the 21st. Surely
> other technologies can do the same?
>
> Alas, the mobile phone turns out to be rather unusual. Its very nature
> makes it an especially good leapfrogger: it works using radio, so
> there is no need to rely on physical infrastructure such as roads and
> phone wires; base-stations can be powered using their own generators
> in places where there is no electrical grid; and you do not have to be
> literate to use a phone, which is handy if your country's education
> system is in a mess. There are some other examples of leapfrog
> technologies that can promote development?moving straight to local,
> small-scale electricity generation based on solar panels or biomass,
> for example, rather than building a centralised power-transmission grid
> ?but there may not be very many.
>
> Indeed, as a recent report from the World Bank points out (see
> article), it is the presence of a solid foundation of intermediate
> technology that determines whether the latest technologies become
> widely diffused. It is all too easy to forget that in the developed
> world, the 21st century's gizmos are underpinned by infrastructure
> that often dates back to the 20th or even the 19th. Computers and
> broadband links are not much use without a reliable electrical supply,
> for example, and the latest medical gear is not terribly helpful in a
> country that lacks basic sanitation and health-care facilities. A
> project to provide every hospital in Ethiopia with an internet
> connection was abandoned a couple of years ago when it became apparent
> that the lack of internet access was the least of the hospitals'
> worries. And despite the clever technical design of the $100 laptop,
> which is intended to bring computing within the reach of the world's
> poorest children, sceptics wonder whether the money might be better
> spent on schoolrooms, teacher training and books.
>
> The World Bank's researchers looked at 28 examples of new technologies
> that achieved a market penetration of at least 5% in the developed
> world, and found that 23 of them went on to manage a penetration of
> over 50%. Once early adopters latch onto something new and useful, in
> other words, the rest of the population can quickly follow. The
> researchers then considered 67 new technologies that had achieved a 5%
> penetration in the developing world, and found that only six of them
> went on to reach 50%. That suggests that although new technologies are
> often adopted by a small minority of people in poor countries, they
> then fail to achieve widespread diffusion, so their benefits do not
> become more generally available.
>
> Lavatories before laptops
> The World Bank concludes that a country's capacity to absorb and
> benefit from new technology depends on the availability of more basic
> forms of infrastructure. This has clear implications for development
> policy. Building a fibre-optic backbone or putting plasma screens into
> schools may be much more glamorous than building electrical grids,
> sewerage systems, water pipelines, roads, railways and schools. It
> would be great if you could always jump straight to the high-tech
> solution, as you can with mobile phones. But with technology, as with
> education, health care and economic development, such short-cuts are
> rare. Most of the time, to go high-tech, you need to have gone medium-
> tech first.
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

--
Saul Caganoff
Enterprise IT Architect
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scaganoff