Ask HN: Is technology a neccessary and/or sufficient condition for development?

[digamber_kamat]

I see that many tech guys promising that the Technology especially IT can help non developed countries to develop faster. Is it true?

I feel countries like US were developed much before digital revolution. Arent Health, Education , Roads more important than IT ?

But then what about the roles IT can play in agriculture, employment etc?

As you can see clearly, I am confused.

[frossie]

Can you go away and come back with an easier question?

Seriously, there are two cases here. First, the idea that developing countries (I believe the term "non-developed" is frowned upon) need certain skills to "compete" in the modern world. Now this is in some way a political or at least philosophical position, because it implies that all countries should seek growth. For example, you can imagine an island country with fertile soil where everybody makes an abundant living through agrictulture or fishing and have access to a reasonable standard of medical care. Do they need IT? Well I don't know. Depends who you ask.

The second case is: for the countries desiring to progress economically, is high-tech a good solution? I think there are some good examples (eg. India, South-East Asia) where the answer does seem to be yes. In particular the reason high-tech (of which IT is one part) is a good choice for a developing country is that it allows you to leapfrog certain historical stages thus eradicating your relative disadvantage faster.

The classic example of this is network infrastructure. The developed countries got network by literally having to dig the ground up and lay cables in order to wire up a city. Now if you were a city in a developing country that only now is getting around to be connected, you can go straight to wireless at a much lower total cost. So, the fact that you are so far behind becomes a comparative advantage - instead of being 20 years behind your developed counterpart you are suddenly only 2 years behind.

Of course the big issue now is energy. Suppose this afternoon someone announces a true renewable energy breakthrough - say a massively efficient but cheap to make solar cell. This kind of technology would allow a developing country to leapfrog centuries of expensive inefficient energy production (coal, oil etc) straight to the best solution. This is the great environmental fear right now - that populous countries like China and India will start laying down "dirty" energy infrastructures before the next best solution is invented.

Do you need high-tech more than hospitals? No. Does high tech help you decent hospitals faster? Many would argue yes.

[ColemanF]

Technology is certainly necessary. Technology is the only way to increase production. Increasing production is they only way to get wealthier, by definition. Not only is it necessary, but technology is also sufficient for development. I'll take development to mean progress on indicators such as GDP as well as life expectancy, literacy rate, and freedom of expression. As I said in the first paragraph, technology is THE way to increase production. But increasing wealth also improves things that seem unrelated to the economy, like freedom of speech, the right to vote, and more. When people are starving, they are desperate for money and will do crazy things to get it. Once they pile up enough money to relax and feel like they have an interest in keeping society stable, they demand (and get) more human rights. South Korea, for example, went from a third-world nation of unproductive farms to a super-productive industrial nation, and, at the same time, became a democracy and a civilized place to live. South Korea just adopted new technologies and the rest followed.