IN A world where 2 billion people live in homes that don’t have light bulbs,
technology holds the key to banishing poverty, says the United Nations in a
major report published this week. But rich nations and multinational
corporations need to do a lot more to put technology into the hands of the
world’s poorest people.
Even the simplest technologies can transform lives and save money. Vaccines,
crops, computers and sources of solar energy
(see Table) can all reduce poverty
in developing countries. For example, cheap oral-rehydration therapy developed
in Bangladesh has dramatically cut the death toll from childhood diarrhoea.
But there has been a “market failure to meet the needs of the poor”, says
lead author Sakiko Fukuda-Parr. “There’s no global framework for supporting
research and development that addresses the common needs of poor people,” she
says.
Advertisement
Multinationals must become part of the solution, because they own around 60
per cent of the world’s technology. But they seldom make products for poor
customers. Of 1223 new drugs marketed worldwide from 1975 to 1996, for example,
just 13 were for tropical diseases.
“It’s the big corporations that own the technology that really should read
this report,” says Fukuda-Parr. “We’re asking them to be more socially
responsible.” They could do more to provide vital products such as medicines at
different prices around the world to suit what people can afford
(91av, 7 July, p 6).
Or pledge a percentage of their profit towards research and
development for the poor.
Governments from rich countries should pay more too. They and other sources
such as the World Bank and international institutes could provide as much as
$10 billion. Developing countries should also make better use of
intellectual property laws that entitle them to vital medicines, just as South
Africa did recently with AIDS drugs.
Critics of the report say it doesn’t take poor people’s views into
account. “You have to ask: is it affordable to people who earn less than a
dollar a day? Is it accessible to them? Can it be managed by local people?” says
Lucja Wisniewska of the British-based charity Intermediate Technology
Development Group.
Controversially, the report backs genetically modified crops despite the
widespread opposition to them among Western environmentalists and
non-governmental organisations. “To reject it entirely is forgoing a huge
opportunity,” says Fukuda-Parr. “If it’s so good for multinationals, why
shouldn’t it be used by poor farmers,” she says.
Computers could also revolutionise the lives of poor people,
allowing them to tap into a global wealth of free information that could help
solve local problems. But they’d need to be cheap and wireless. Fukuda-Parr says
that Brazil and India have already developed cheap computers, proving that
countries can do it for themselves.
But the objectives will be difficult to achieve. Time has stood
still in sub-Saharan Africa, where there has been no increase in tractor use for
a decade.
