DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL / WORKING PAPER

No. 2018-22

E. F. Schumacher and Intermediate Technology

Robert Leonard

Avril 2018

E. F. Schumacher and Intermediate Technology

Robert Leonard, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

Document de travail No. 2018-22

Avril 2018

Département des Sciences Économiques Université du Québec à Montréal

Case postale 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville

Montréal, (Québec), H3C 3P8, Canada Courriel : brisson.lorraine@uqam.ca

Site web : http://economie.esg.uqam.ca

Les documents de travail contiennent souvent des travaux préliminaires ou partiels et sont circulés pour encourager et stimuler les discussions. Toute citation et référence à ces documents devrait tenir compte de leur caractère provisoire. Les opinions exprimées dans les documents de travail sont ceux de leurs auteurs et ne reflètent pas nécessairement ceux du département des sciences économiques ou de l'ESG.

Copyright (2018): Robert Leonard. De courts extraits de texte peuvent être cités et reproduits sans permission explicite à condition que la source soit référencée de manière appropriée.

E.F.SchumacherandIntermediateTechnology*IntroductionItwouldtakeconsiderablymorespacethanisavailableheretodohistoricaljusticetoE.F.Schumacher’sintroductionoftheideaofintermediatetechnology.Althoughhefirstmadethesuggestionintheearly1960’s,hisideasontechnology,anditsplaceineconomicdevelopmentandculture,hadbeenevolvingsinceatleasthisformativeintellectualcrisisofadecadepreviously.Upto1950,whenhebecameanemployeeattheNationalCoalBoard,Schumacher(1911-1977)was,inmanyrespects,aconventionaleconomist:broadlysocialistinoutlook,hewasconfidentinWesternprogress,havingadeepknowledgeofinternationalmonetaryaffairsandaparticularinterestinpostwarplanning.1ThesonofGermaneconomicsmandarin,HermannSchumacher,hehadlefthiscountryin1930onaRhodesScholarshiptoOxford,tostudyeconomicsandpolitics.Extendingthedurationofhisscholarship,SchumacherspentayearinNewYork,studyingmonetaryeconomicsunderColumbiaUniversity’sParkerWillisandthenlecturingatthatuniversity.ReturningtoGermanyin1934,herefusedtoingratiatehimselfwiththeregime,andin1936,newlymarriedtoAnnaMariaPetersenfromHamburg,heleftforLondontoworkwithUnilever.Whenthewarbrokeout,hewasdetainedbriefly,alongwithotheraliens,inPreesHeathinternmentcamp,beforebeingconfinedtoacottageonEydon,theNorthamptonshireestateownedbyseniorTreasuryfigure,RobertBrand.There,Schumacherworkedasafarmlabourer,yetpersistedinwritingoneconomicaffairs,particularlyonprospectivepostwarmonetaryarrangements.ItwasthisthatbroughthimincontactwithKeynesandsawhimappointedtoOxford’swartimeInstituteofStatistics,alongsideM.Kaleçki,T.BaloghandF.Burckhardt,wherehespentmostofthewar.AcommittedFabian,hewasaco-authoroftheBeveridgeReportwithNicholasKaldorandJoanRobinson,andhealsoparticipatedinRosenstein-Rodan’swartimeseminarindevelopmenteconomicsattheRoyalInstituteofInternationalAffairsatChathamHouse.Schumacher’smainconcernatthistimewastoprovidecriticaldiscussionofboththeAmerican(White)andBritish(Keynes)institutionalplansfortherestorationofpostwartradeandpayments.Totheextentthathewasconcernedwithunderdevelopedcountries,itwasbyandlargeasanincidentalcorollarytohisanalysisofthealreadydevelopedworld.Thus,forexample,KaleçkiandSchumacher’s1943paperon“InternationalClearingandLong-TermLending”arguesagainsttheexcessiverestrictionofpostwartradesurplusesonthegroundsthatsuchaccumulatedfundscouldbefruitfullyusedtoprovideloansto*RobertLeonard,UQAM(leonard.robert@uqam.ca).Forgenerouslyprovidingaccesstoherfamilypapersanddiscussingherfather’swork,IamgratefultoBarbaraWood,daughterandbiographerofE.F.Schumacher.FortheirgeneroushelpwiththearchivesattheSchumacherCenterforaNewEconomics,Gt.Barrington,Massachusetts,IthankSusanWittandAmeliaHolmes.Forconversationsabouttheman,IamgratefultoBarbaraWood,again,andtoVreniSchumacher,hiswidow.1Schumacherhasreceivedrelativelylittlescholarlyattention.Forexample,seeWood(1984),anearlybiography,writtenbyhiseldestdaughter,andToye(2011),anassessmentoftherelevancetoSchumacher’simpactofvariousfactorsincludinghiseducation,background,personalityandmoralvision..

2

underdevelopedregions.2A1945paperbySchumacheron“Anglo-EgyptianCurrencyRelations”arguedthattheeliminationofEgypt’ssubstantialSterlingbalance,accumulatedduringwartime,wouldrequireapolicyofthemost“rapidindustrialization”ofwhichtheEgyptianswerecapable.Theseremarksonthedevelopingworld,however,wereessentiallymadeinpassing,andwerefarfrombeingatthecentreofhisconcerns.Havingspent1945inGermanywiththeStrategicBombingSurvey,hereturnedtherethefollowingyeartoworkonpostwarreconstructionwiththeAlliedControlCommission.There,workingalongsidefellowsocialistssuchasWalterFliess,hepressed,ultimatelywithoutsuccess,forthenationalizationofGermanheavyindustry.HeremainedinGermanyuntil1949,atwhichpointhewashappytoreturntotheU.K.,toapostattheNationalCoalBoard.Intheearly1950’s,however,notwithstandinghisprofessionalresponsibilitiesattheN.C.B.,Schumacherunderwentaprotractedintellectualandspiritualcrisis,whichledhimtochallenge,andabandon,manyofhisearly,conventionalbeliefsaboutscience,religionandhumanprogress.Thiscrisis,whichappearstohavebeentriggeredbyhisshockatthemodernGermancatastrophe,markedthebeginningofthedemiseoftheconventionaleconomistinhimandthesubsequentemergenceof“Schumacher”,thesageandpropheticfigureeventuallyreadbymillions,especiallyafterthepublicationofhis1973book,SmallisBeautiful.Inwhatfollows,wefirstconsiderbrieflythecriticalyearsfrom1950till1955,theperiodofspiritualquestthatultimatelyledhimtoBurma,wherehewrotethefirstversionofhisfamousessay,“BuddhistEconomics”,anessaythatmarkedhimasoneofthefirstWesterneconomiststobecomedisillusionedwithconventionaleconomicdevelopment.Wethenconsidertheensuingdecade,duringwhichhebecameincreasingly“anti-modern”,visitedIndiaandbegantogiveexplicitconsiderationtolevelsoftechnology.OutofthisemergedtheintermediatetechnologyideaandtheformationoftheIntermediateTechnologyDevelopmentGroup.Weclosewithsomeconcludingreflections.Themakingof“Schumacher”,1950-1955Iftherewerealreadysignsofdisenchantmentwiththemodernworldinthemid-1940’s,particularlywhenSchumacherconfrontedtheruinsofGermancivilization,hiscriticismwidenedanddeepenedintheearly1950’s,whenheandhisyoungfamilysettleddowninSurrey.Thechangeofperspectivewascatalysedbyreadingsandnewexperiencesinvariousfields.Firstly,notonlydidhecultivatehisowngarden,buthebecameveryinterestedindebatessurroundingthemoderntransformationofagriculturethroughtheuseofchemicalsandmechanisation,withattendanteffectsonbothfoodqualityandtheruralenvironment.Heread,amongstotherthings,EveBalfour’s(1943)TheLivingSoil,herrousingmanifestofor

2SeeKaleçkiandSchumacher(1943),p.31.SeealsoSchumacher(1943a)and(1943b).OnSchumacher’scontributiontotheBrettonWoodsdebates,seeHelleiner(2014),p.242.

3

whatwouldlaterbeknownastheorganicmovement.3HealsojoinedtheSoilAssociation,createdbyBalfour,andeveninvitedthemtogiveatalkandpresentafilmathisCoalBoardoffices.LikeBalfourandseveralothersheread,SchumacherwasaffectedbyAlexisCarrel’s(1935)MantheUnknown,whichsawmodernscientificandindustrialprogressasleadingtoexcessivecomfortandweaknessincontemporaryhumanity.4Secondly,havingpreviouslyshownadisinterestinreligiousorspiritualmatters,hebecameinvolvedinthemovementsurroundingthecultfigureandmystic,G.I.Gurdjieffandhisfollower,PyotrOuspensky.SchumacherwasparticularlyinfluencedbythewritingsandteachingsofGurdjieff’sLondonfollowers,MauriceNicollandJohnG.Bennett.Allofthisnotonlyopenedhimuptothespiritualrealmbutcultivatedinhimaninterestinthe“East”,asasourceoftraditionalwisdom,alternativetothematerialisticWest.JoiningtheBuddhistSocietyinLondon,Schumacherbegantoreadwidelyonthesubject,eventuallyaccumulatinganextensivelibrary,andhetookupthepracticeofyoga,undertheinfluenceofteacher,SelvarajanYesudian.Sosignificantwastheeffectofallthesereadingsandactivitiesthat,by1953,Schumachercouldreporttohiswifethathewasundergoingareorientationinhis“entireattitudetolife”.5Thethird,andarguablymostdeepandlong-lasting,influenceuponSchumacherwashisdiscoveryoftheTraditionalistwritingsofRenéGuénon,AnandaCoomaraswamyandFrithjofSchuon.Intheirwork,beginningmostforcefullywithGuénon’s(1942)TheCrisisoftheModernWorld,theTraditionalistsportrayedtheentireperiodofWesternmodernitysincethe17thcenturyasadeviationfromhumanity’struepurposeonearth.AtthecentreoftheTraditionalistvisionlaytheSophiaPerennis,orPerennialWisdom,whichpositedtheultimatedependenceofallmanifestation(i.e.,theexistingnaturalandhumanworld)uponasupremeordivinepower,withtheworld’sgreatreligionsbeingvariousexpressionsofthistimelessmetaphysicaltruth.AlthoughheappearstohavehadbutanintroductiontoTraditionalismbeforeheadingforBurmain1955,Schumacherwouldsoonfindthereinadeepandall-encompassingperspectiveonthehumanconditionandaconsolingvisionofpotentialcosmicorder.Intime,itwouldaffecthisviewsoneverythingfromtheabuseofquantificationandstatisticsthroughtheappropriateuseoftechnologytohisattitudetomaterialpovertyandwealth.Stimulatedbythesenewreadings,onthenaturalorder,onmodernindustrialsocietyandonEasternwisdom,SchumachertookoffforBurma,wherehespentthreemonthsasaU.N.economist,evaluatingthecountry’splansforeconomicandsocialdevelopment.Here,facedwithAmerican-inspired,materialisticplansthatthreatenedtodisturbatraditional3SeealsoLymington(1938),Massingham(1945)andNorthbourne(1940).4Notunlikeseveraloftheauthorsintheruralrevivalmovement,Carrel’spoliticalviewsweresympathetictofascism.Indeed,hadhenotdiedin1944,hemightwellhavebeenpursuedinpostwarFranceforhisclosenesstotheforcesofoccupation:hewasacentralfigureintheFondationfrançaisepourl’EtudedesProblèmeshumains,createdbytheVichyregimein1941.(SeeReggiani2007).Itisameasureoftheintellectualeffervescenceofthe1930’sthatCarrelwasreadwithseriousinterestbyaheterogeneousreadership,manyofwhomhardlysharedhispoliticalviews.TheseincludednotonlyEveBalfourherselfbutevenSchumacher’syogaguide,SelvarajanYesudian.5EFStoAnnaMariaSchumacher,March3,1954,SchumacherFamilyPapersLondon,hereafterSFPL.

4

and,inSchumacher’seyes,satisfactorysocialorder,hewrotethefirstversionofwhatwastobecomehismostfamousessay,“BuddhistEconomics”.IfBurmaweretodevelopinamannerthatpreserveditsspiritualethos,itcouldonlybebyresistingthepressuresoftheWest,lookingtoGandhiansimplicityandlocalismasasourceofinspiration,andfindingitsown“MiddleWay”.Partofthisinvolvedresistingthetemptationsofmechanizedfactoryproductioninfavourofmanualcraftandworkmanship.Italsorequiredrecognizingthattheuseofnon-renewableresources,suchasoilandcoal,couldnotbesustainedpermanently.6AfterBurma,SchumacherbecamefamiliarwiththeworkofGandhianeconomist,JosephKumarappa,who,foratleastadecade,hadbeenarguingtheneedfora“permanent”,orsustainable,economy–onewhich,bydefinition,couldnotbebaseduponthedepletionofnon-renewableresources.7WithsuchideasoneconomicdevelopmentinturnaffectingSchumacher’sperceptionofthedevelopedWest,hebecameanearlyconduitforthepassageofinfluence,notfromtheNorthtotheSouth,aswasoverwhelminglythecase,butintheoppositedirection.8FollowinghisreturnfromBurma,SchumachernotonlydeepenedhisengagementwiththeTraditionalistsandalsoreadtheideasontechnologyofhisfamousbrother-in-law,WernerHeisenberg.9NotonlywastheGermannuclearphysicistpartofthefamily,hewasrepresentativeofthemodernscientificandindustrialsociety,thedesirabilityofwhichSchumacherwasbeginningtocallintoquestion.WhileHeisenbergshowedhimselftobequiteacceptingoftheinevitabilityofbothtechnologicalchangeanditsdisruptiveculturalimpact,Schumacherdisagreed,believingthatasocietypreparedtotoleratenuclearwasteandcontenttorelyonnon-renewableresourceswas,ofnecessity,asocietydestinedtofail.TheseandotherreadingsallservedtohardenSchumacherinwhatmightbecalledhis“anti-modernism”.IntermediateTechnologySchumacher’sunpublished“BuddhistEconomics”essaywasnoticedbyJ.P.Narayan,theIndiansocialist-turned-Gandhian,whomSchumachermetinLondonin1958.10Asaresult,SchumacherwasinvitedtoaconferenceinIndia,inPoona,inearly1961,withhistalksbeingpublishedthefollowingyearasapamphlet,“TheRootsofEconomicGrowth”.11

6ItisclearthatbythetimehevisitedBurmaSchumacherwasfamiliarwithGandhi’swritingsandwasalsoreadingCoomaraswamy’s(1912)ArtandSwadeshi,whichlamentedthelossoftraditionalcraftinIndia,evenwhen,underGandhi’sSwadeshiinitiative,importswerereplacedbylocalproduction.ItwasthroughhisengagementwithIndianartandpoliticsthatCoomaraswamy,ageologist-turned-arthistorian,intimebecameakeyfiguretheTraditionalistcanon.7SeeKumarappa,J.C.(1958,orig.1946),EconomyofPermanence,4thed.,Rajghat,Kashi:Sarva-Seva-Sangh-Publication.OnotherIndiancontributionstodevelopmentthinking,seetheDuttessayinthisvolume.8Ithankarefereeforpointingoutthissimpletruth.9ThebooksreadbySchumacherincludedHeisenberg(1958a)and(1958b).10Narayanincludedit,underitsthen-title“EconomicsinaBuddhistCountry”,asanappendixinhis1959book,APleaforReconstructionofIndianPolity.11SeeSchumacher(1962).Thiscollectionalsoincluded“EconomicsinaBuddhistCountry”from1955;“Non-violentEconomics”,hisObserverarticleofAugust1960;aswellastwoarticleshewrotesubsequenttohisvisit,“NotesonIndianDevelopmentProblems”(April1961)and“LevelsofTechnology”(July1961).

5

Inhismaintalk,“HelptoThoseWhoNeeditMost:SomeProblemsofEconomicDevelopment”,SchumachercriticizedWorldBankPresident,EugeneBlack,who,inarecentarticle,hademphasizedtheneedformaterialeconomicdevelopment,andpresentedanysocial,psychological,moralorpoliticalchangesasmerelymeanstothatend.12Schumacheragreedwiththeneedtoalleviatehumanmisery,butdisagreedthatmenoughttobedriveninordertodevelopaWesternworkethic,orthatthepracticesofadvancedcountrieswereworthyofimitation.Black’sattitude,hesaid,revealed“notonlyanastoundinglackofimaginationbutalsoatrulyominouslackofawarenessofthedehumanisingdeformitiesofthemodernWest”(p.32).Theproblemwithdevelopmentprogrammesastheyhadbeenappliedthusfarwasthattheywerebringingsophisticatedproductiontechniquesandmateriallyhighliving-standardstoasmallminorityofthepopulation,butgeneratingapathyandparalysisintheremaining80%.Somewayhadtobefoundofencouragingthe“spontaneousmobilizationofthislabourpower”(p.34).Inboth“PathstoEconomicGrowth”andhismainaddress,SchumacheraddressedWaltRostow’s“beautifultheory...derivedfromaeronautics”(p.15),withitssuggestionthata“take-off”wouldoccurwhentherightconditionsweremet.13Theconditionsweretoensureproductiveinvestmentofover10%ofnationalincome;thedevelopmentofoneormoresubstantialmanufacturingsectors;andtheemergenceofapolitical,socialandinstitutionalframeworkthatexploitedthemodernsectors’simpulsetoexpansion.Suchsentences,saidSchumacher,whiletheymightbeaccuratedescriptionsofpastevents,shouldnotbeadoptedasprescriptive“conditions”fordevelopment.“Beingabstractions,theycannotbe‘done’(exceptpossiblybytotalitarianmethods);theydonottouchthepeople’sheart;theyinducetheimaginationtoturntotheactual–thatwhichexistsalready,andexistsmostconspicuouslyintherichcountries–whereasitshouldbeturnedtothepotential,namely,theunusedlabourpowerandcreativenessoftheindigenouspopulation”(p.35).Andyetsomethinghadtobedone,hesaid.Thegrindingpoverty,apathyanddespairofmillionsofIndianswasnotanormalhistoricaldevelopment,forpeoplehadalwaysfoundawaytoprovidefortheirneeds.Whatwasnewwasthemiserythatwasaffectinghundredsofthousands,eveninpeacetime:“--amonstrousandscandalousthingwhichisaltogetherabnormalinthehistoryofmankind”(p.37).Theunderlyingreason,saidSchumacher,wastheparalyzingeffectofthemodernWest,liketheeffectofCortesontheAztecs.Itwasthesuddennessandsizeofthechangethatwasdeleterious.Theimplantationofamoderntransportsystemhadtheeffectofopeninguptheregionaltownsandvillagestocompetitionfromcheapergoodsproducedinadvancedfactoriesinthemetropolitancentres.Deniedtheirownlivelihoods,theruralpeopleweren’tevenabletobuysuchgoods.Onecouldnotignoretheeffectofaidschemesonthe

12SeeBlack(1960).13HerefersthroughouttoRostow(1956),nottoRostow’s1960book-lengthtreatment,TheStagesofEconomicGrowth:ANon-CommunistManifesto.FormoreonRostow,seethepaperbyGilmaninthisvolume.

6

population.Whatwasrequiredwasto“Findoutwhatthepeoplearetryingtodoandhelpthemtodoitbetter”(p.42).14In“NotesonIndianDevelopmentProblems”,writteninAprilaftercomingbackfromIndia,hewrotethatthemetropolitanareas,with15%ofthepopulation,andtherural-orrumpeconomy,withtherest,werepoisoningeachother.Theadvancedindustriesintheformerwerekillingoffproductionofwage-goodsintheruralareas,causingdespondencyandmigrationtothecity.Thedeclineoftheruraleconomiescausedculturalstarvationwhichfurtherdamagedagriculture,forthelatterneededthestimulusofindustrialcraftsandculturalinfluencesinordertothrive.Inordertoensureuniformlocaldevelopment,therewasaneedforplanningonadistrict-,notanational,basis.In“LevelsofTechnology:Akeyproblemforunderdevelopedcountries”,writteninJuly,Schumacherhonedinonthetechnologyquestion.Theproblemwastheco-existenceindevelopingcountriesofthejetengineandthebullockcart,withthefalsehopethatacountrycouldjumpfromonetotheotherwithoutgoingthroughtheintermediatestages,aprocessthat,forthenow-developedcountries,hadtakencenturies.Theisolatedislandsoftechnologythathadbeenimplantedweredamagingtherestoftheeconomyby,firstly,destroyingregionalproductionand,secondly,dividingthesocietyintorichandpoor.Becausetheopportunitycostoflabourwassolow,itwouldbebettertofocusonlabour-intensiveproduction,andencouragethecreationofworkplacesthecostofwhichboresomereasonablerelationtoIndianwages.Otherwise,suchinvestmentwouldbeforeveroutofreachoflocalentrepreneurs.

“Therichcountriesdidnotbecomerichbysuddenlyemployingadvancedtechnology.Theyincreasedthecapitalembodiedineachworkplacegraduallyovertime.Thedevelopingcountriesmustadvanceonestepatatime.Thisisimpossibletospecifyquantitativelyandprecisely,butitmeansthatthetechnologyintroducedmustremainwithinthereachofthepeople”(p.56).

InNovember1962,hereturnedtoIndiaforasix-weekstayasadvisortotheIndianPlanningCommission.Hewasshownaround,visitingworkshopsandfactoriesandspeakingtopeopleHespenttimewithGandhi’sdisciple,VinobaBhave,theleaderoftheGramdan,orland-transfer,movement.15HisreporttothePlanningCommissioninNewDehli,whichreiteratedtheneedtochoosecheapertechnologyanddeveloporganically,waspublishedinIndiaatMidpassage,the1964assessmentbyLondon’sOverseasDevelopmentInstitute.

14AsindicatedinCoomaraswamy’s(1912)ArtandSwadeshi,whichSchumacherread,thisphrasecomesfromRuskin:“Ifyoufindyourselfsetinapositionofauthorityandareentrustedtodeterminemodesofeducation,ascertainfirstwhatthepeopleyouwouldteachhavebeeninthehabitofdoing,andencouragethemtodothatbetter”(p.141).15OnBhave,seeLinton(1972).

7

Inthesameyear,SchumacherpresentedhisideastotheCambridgeConferenceonDevelopment.16Createworkplaceswheretheyareneeded,hesaid;dosocheaply;usesimplemethods;andproduceforlocaluseusinglocalmaterials.Westerncapital-intensivetechnology,whichwasintendedtosubstituteforscarcelabour,wasinappropriateincountrieswherelabourwasabundant.Hecriticizedthe“development‘experts’”,whowereunabletoconceiveofproductionunlessalltheparaphernaliaoftheWesternwayoflifewasalreadyinstalled:“electricity,steel,cement,near-perfectorganisation,sophisticatedaccountancy(preferablywithcomputers),nottomentionamostelaborate‘infrastructure’oftransportandotherpublicservices”(p.136).PreliminarydesignstudiesinIndia,heclaimed,werealreadyshowingthatitemsproducedwithintermediatetechnologywerefullycompetitivewithWesternones.Heclosedalmostpoetically,withallusions,forthealertlistener,toBalfouronthesoil,Coomaraswamyoncraft,theBodhitree,andpagodasandcathedralsbuiltbyhandwithlimemortar:

“[Development]willhavetorelymainlyonlocalmaterials,andthesewillbejustthesameasthoseonwhichallpre-industrialgenerationshavehadtorely.Itisaremarkablefacthowmuchofthetraditionalknowledgeoflocalmaterialshasbeenlostduringthelasttwoorthreegenerations.Peoplewillhavetolearnagainthatitispossibletohaveahighlyproductiveagriculturebymeansof‘greenmanure’andotherorganicmethods,andthatchemicalfertilisersmaynotbetherealansweratall.Theywillhavetorememberthattheirforefathersbuiltwithoutmoderncementandyetextremelydurably;howmuchtheyreliedontrees,notmerelyforthesupplyoffoodandmaterialsbutalsofortheimprovementofsoilandclimate.Withthehelpofmodernknowledgetheyshouldnowbeabletodoevenbetterintheserespectsthantheirforefathersdid.Treeplanting,indeed,deservestobesingledoutforspecialemphasisinthiscontext,becausetheworldisfullofcaseswheretheneglectoftreesisoneofthechiefcausesofmiseryandhelplessness,whiletherecoveryofarealisticsenseofman’sdependenceontreeswouldbeamostfruitfulmoveintherightdirection.Nohightechnologyorforeignaidisneededforplantingandlookingaftertrees;everyable-bodiedpersoncanmakehiscontributionandbenefitfromit;awiderangeofusefulmaterialscanbeobtainedfromtrees–somespeciesbeingveryfastgrowersintropicalandevensemi-tropicalclimates–andthesematerialslendthemselvesexceptionallywellforutilisationby‘intermediatetechnology’.Yettherearefew‘developing’countrieswheretreesdonotsufferfromheedlessneglect...Inmostplacesthereisnoexcuseforanyallegedshortagesofbuildingmaterials.Theplanningexpertsshouldstudyhowmuchhasbeenbuiltwithoutmoderncementthroughouttheages”(pp.140-141).

Notsurprisinglyperhaps,theassembledeconomistscriticizedhim,sayingthathewaspromotingthewasteofcapitalresourcesandtheproductionofnon-competitivegoods.Theensuingdebatewas,byallaccounts,lively,withtheeconomistsstickingtotheirbenignviewofdevelopmentthroughadvancedindustrialization.Intermediatetechnology,they16SeeSchumacher(1964b).

8

argued,simplycouldnotfueltheeconomicgrowthneededtoabsorbthesurpluspopulationinagriculture.Schumacherwasaccusedofbeingaromanticconservative,anAnglo-Saxonpronetoidealizingpeasantlife.Undaunted,hestucktohisviewthattheexpandingmetropolisanddecliningruralsectorwerepoisoningoneanother.17Hefollowedupwith“HowtoHelpThemHelpThemselves”,anObserverarticleinAugustofthesameyear,replyingtotheeconomistsandfurtherpressingtheidea.18Earlier,inMay,followingdiscussionsbetweenSchumacher,GeorgeMcRobieandJuliaPorter,agroupofabouttwentyhadcometogether,onapurelyvoluntarybasis,inordertodosomethingtopromotetheseideasindevelopingcountries.TheresultwastheformationoftheIntermediateTechnologyDevelopmentGroup,itsfirstcapitalinjectionbeingthefeefromSchumacher’sObserverarticle.19ToolsforProgress.TheITDG’sfirstcatalogue,ToolsforProgress,appearedin1967.20AnintroductoryarticlebySchumacher,whichhadearlierappearedinTheTimes,describedthecentralproblem:howtoprovidesupporttothegreatruralpopulationsofSoutheastAsia,AfricaandLatinAmerica,iftheproblemsofhunger,massunemploymentanduncontrolledurbanisationweretobemitigated.“Toraisethelevelofagriculture,thewholelevelofpeasantlifehastoberaised,andthismeansthedevelopmentofanagro-industrialstructureintheruralareas,sothateachcommunitycanofferalargevarietyofoccupationsforitsmembers”(p.7).Foreverytool,machineandotheritemofequipmentillustrated,thecatalogueprovidedanillustrateddescriptionandthenameoftheBritishcompanyfromwhomitcouldbeordered.TheproductsweregroupedunderAgriculture,Building,Education,Fishing,Forestry&Woodworking,Handicrafts&Small-scaleManufacture,Handling,Measurement,MetalWorking&MachineMaintenance,Power,Transport&RoadmakingandWaterSupply.17SeeMcRobie(1981),pp.23–24;alsoRobinson(1971),p.8and,especially,pp.94–106,whichsummarizestheCambridgeconferencedebatesurroundingSchumacher’spresentation.18SeeSchumacher(1965b).Onlydesignstudiesandempiricalinvestigation,hesaid,couldtellwhichkindoftechnologyproducedthemostfavourablecapital-outputratioandwhetherornotthegoodsproducedwerecompetitive.Therewerenolawsofnatureormantoproveintheabstractthatthemostadvancedtechnologywasthemosteconomic.Opcit.,pp.25–30.19JuliaPorter(1926-1992),whowasthenmanagingtheAfricaDevelopmentTrust,wouldbecomeakeyorganiserandfundraiserfortheITDG.SeeObituary,TheGuardian,Aug.30,1992.McRobie(1925-2016)wouldbeevenmoreimportant,becomingSchumacher’s“ManFriday”andacentralfigureintheIntermediateTechnologymovement.FollowingadegreeineconomicsattheLSE,McRobieworkedattheindependentthink-tank,PoliticalandEconomicPlanning,beforemovingtotheCoalBoardwherehecametoknowSchumacher.IntheearlySixties,hespenttimeinIndiaworkingonaFordFoundationproject,beforereturningtoLondonwherehejoinedtheITDG.McRobie’swife,Sybil,wasaneditor,firstattheRoyalInstituteofInternationalAffairsandthenatPoliticalandEconomicPlanning.SeeObituary,TheGuardian,July10,2007.FormoreonMcRobie’sinvolementintheITDG,seeMcRobie(1981).20IntermediateTechnologyDevelopmentGroup(1967),ToolsforProgress:GuidetoEquipmentandMaterialsforSmall-scaleDevelopment,London:ITDG.Itwastheresultofayear’sresearch,financedbytheScottBaderCommonwealth,WaronWant,theWilliamJohnstonYappCharitableTrustandOxfam,whichinvolvedsurveyingcompaniestodeterminewhichoftheirproductsweresuitableforsaletodevelopingcommunities.

9

Manyofthetoolsadvertisedwereusedbyhandordrawnbyananimal.Forexample,inadditiontotheusualgardenequipment,thehand-operatedtoolsincludedmills,ricehullersandmaizeshellers.TheNorfolkmetal-benderallowedamantobendpipeandotherkindsofmetal,whilethehand-poweredMat-MakingLoomproducedmatsofvariouskinds.Theanimal-drawnfarmequipmentincludedploughs,harrows,hoesandmulti-usetoolbars.Othertools,suchasamachineforshellingground-nuts,couldbepoweredeitherbyhandorbymotor.Severalsmalltractorswerefeatured,aswasarangeofsmallpumps,forirrigationanddrainage.Onemighthaveexpectedthecataloguetobe“pure”,inreflectionofSchumacher’sconcernwithmodernagricultureandhismembershipoftheSoilAssociation,butitwasfarfromit.Thebrochurereflectedtheadviceofvariousgroupsof“experts”,requiredfundingthroughadvertisingand,aboveallperhaps,hadtopragmaticallycatertotheperceivedneedsofitstargetreaders.Thus,inadditiontotherequisitemanual-andpoweredsprayers,itofferedfertilizersfromImperialChemicalIndustriesalongwithchemicalcrop-sprayersandgreenhousesmoke-bombscontainingLindane,DieldrinorDDT.21Itevenfeaturedafull-pageadvertisementbyShellChemicalsfortheirinsecticides,fungicidesandherbicides.Yet,forallitspragmaticconcessionstomoderntechnology,thecataloguewastraditionalinthrust.AsSchumacherhadrepeatedlystated,itsaimwastokeeppeopleonthelandandinthevillages,todosomethingforthemajoritywhohadfailedtobenefitfrom,orhadbeenactivelyharmedby,the“Westernisation”ofaminority.Thecataloguewasalsosuccessful,leadingtosignificantdemandforinformationfromvariouscountries.Inresponse,beginningin1968,theITDGbegantoformitsownsupportnetworkofvoluntarypanelsofexperts,firstinbuilding,thenwatersupply,and,shortlyafterwards,agriculture,healthandcooperatives.Bytheendofthe1970’s,itsnetworkcomprisedsome300professionals,andithadfifteentechnicalstaff,sevenofwhomwereinAfricarunningprojects.Bythe1980’s,theworkoftheITDGextendedtomanyareas,includingbuilding(e.g.,theuseoftraditionallime-pozzolanamortars),water(e.g.rainwatercollectiontanks),farming(e.g.,instructioninthemanufactureofsmalltools),transport(e.g.,developinganefficientrickshaw,theOxtrike),energy(e.g.,windmillsforlow-liftirrigation),health(e..g,promotingtheemploymentofauxiliariesinvillagehealthcare)andwomen(e.g.labour-savingmilling-andweedingmachines;waterpurification).22ClosingRemarks21Forexample,asiswellknown,DDTwouldlaterbeshowntoberesponsibleforthemassdestructionofthePeregrineFalconinNorthAmericaandWesternEurope,withtheconsumptionofDDT-ladenpreycausingweakeningoftheraptor’seggshells.22McRobie(1981)providesanaccountoftheworkoftheITDGinitsfirstfifteenyears.InlightofthesprayersandpesticidesincludedinToolsforProgress,itisworthnotingthat,by1981,McRobiewascriticizingthefactthat“thesmallholderindevelopingcountries...isbeingpersuadedtoadoptthechemicalfarmingpracticesoftheWest.Theintensiveuseofherbicides,pesticidesandinorganicfertilizersisanadvanced–possiblyterminal–formofviolence,theequivalentinagricultureoftheuseofnuclearpowerinindustry”(p.49).

10

In1973,afterconsiderabledifficultyinfindingapublisher,Schumacherreleasedacollectionofhisessays,SmallisBeautiful:AStudyofEconomicsasifPeopleMattered.ThesewereorganisedinsectionscoveringtheModernWorld;Resources:theThirdWorld,andOrganisationandOwnership.Thebookmakesitclearthat,justasmuchasfor“developing”countries,thetechnologyquestionwasamatterforthedevelopedWest,whereSchumacheremphasizedtheviolenceofmodernindustrial,scientificculture.Withtherapiddevelopmentinthevolumeofeconomicproductionandthescientificdevelopmentofnewpollutants,hesaid,theterms“pollution,environmentandecology”hadsuddenlygainedprominence.Thetolerancemarginswhich“benignnature”hadalwaysprovidedwerenowbeingchallenged.Thedevelopmentofnuclearpower,withitsintractablewastedisposalproblem,wasanenvironmentalthreatofthegreatestmagnitude.Notonlywastheexternalenvironmentbeingerodedbytechnologicaldevelopment,sotoowas“theverysubstanceofindustrialman”intheformof“crime,drugaddiction,vandalism,mentalbreakdown,rebellion”(pp.16–17).Toolittleattentionhadbeenpaidtopreservingthequalityofworkinglifeandtoomuchtoacceleratingindustrialdevelopment.TheWest,hewrotebluntly,havingignoredalllimitations,wasonacollisioncoursetowardsdestruction.Thebook’sessaysexploredessentiallythesethemes,fromvariousperspectives,invariablyresolvinginamoralappealbySchumacherforrestraintandimprovedbehaviour.ItmadeforpowerfulreadingandturnedSchumacher,almostovernight,intoaleadingfigureinthecountercultureofthe1970’s,withtoursofAmericanuniversitycampusesandevenasummonstoJimmyCarter’sWhiteHouse.Happythathisideaswerefinallyreceivingattention,Schumacherrespondedavidlytothepublicdemandfortalksandappearancesandmaywellhaveexhaustedhimselfintheprocess,dyingofaheartattackonaSwisstrainin1977,attheageof66.AfterSchumacher’sdeath,theAppropriateTechnologymovementtookalifeofitsown,withtheI.T.D.G.atitscentre.Inthe“ThirdWorld”,AppropriateTechnologyorganizationsweresetupincountriessuchasIndia,Pakistan,SriLanka,Zambia,Kenya,MalawiandTanzania.Althoughinternationalorganizationswereslowtoendorsethemovement,withtheexceptionoftheInternationalLaborOffice,aftertheoilcrisisof1973,therewasachangeofopinion.23FollowingthesuccessofvariousI.T.D.G.projectsinNigeriaandZambia,theBritishMinistryofOverseasDevelopmentbegantoprovidemoresubstantialsupport.WesterncountriessuchFrance,Germany,theScandinavianstatesandTheNetherlandsbegantogivespecialemphasistointermedatetechnologyintheiraidprogrammes.By1985,FrancesStewartcouldwritethatthatthemovementhad“gainedavastnumberofadherents,includingsomegovernments...andagooddealoftheaid“establishment’inadvancedcountries”(inCarr(ed.)(1985),p.xiii).Yet,therewerealsoobstaclestoitsadoption.Insomecases,theappropriatetechnologysimplydidnotexist.Inothers,eventhoughasimplertechnologymightexist,eitheritfailedongroundsofefficiencyortheexpressedpreferenceforadvancedproductsmeantthatitcouldnotbechosen.Inyetotherinstances,thechoiceoftechnologywassubjecttodistortinginfluences,includingcreditallocation,aggressivepromotionbyhigh-techproducers,andtheinfluenceofcorruptéliteminoritieswithatasteforadvancedproducts.Therewasalsoneedfor

23SeeMcRobie(1981),passim.

11

greaterattentiontothepromotionofexistingappropriatetechnologiesandtothe“endogenisation”ofsuchwork,ratherthanlettingitremaintheresponsibilityofoutsiders.Withinthedevelopedcountriesthemselves,aspartofthe“counterculture”ofthe1970’s,thereemergedvariousappropriate-technologyinitiatives,manyoftheminthedomainsofagricultureandenergy,whererelianceonpetrochemicalswasgreat.InBritain,thepromotionof“biologicalhusbandry”wasconductedbygroupssuchastheSoilAssociation,theOrganicFarmersandGrowersCo-operativeandtheHenryDoubledayResearchAssociation.24IntheU.S.,inspiredbythewritingsofRachelCarson,WendellBerryandHazelHenderson,andtheback-to-the-landmovementledbyHelenandScottNearing,anentireSchumacheriangenerationturnedtoalternatives.Forexample,theNewAlchemyInstituteonCapeCod,Massachussetts,conductedresearchonaquaculture,organicagriculture,solarenergy,windmillsandbio-shelters.InCanada,theInstituteforManandResourcesinPrinceEdwardIslandengagedinappropriate-technologyresearchinthehopeofcounteringtheisland’strajectoryfromanabundanceofsmall,mixedfamily-farmstoahomogeneous,large-scale,chemical-ladenmonoculturebasedonthepotato.BeginningwiththeITDG’sownquarterlyjournal,AppropriateTechnology,thefieldalsogaverisetoasubstantialliterature,bothpracticalandtheoretical.Forexample,Stewart(1977)pursuesthetheoreticaldebateontechnologychoice,providingacritiqueofneoclassicalanalysis.MarilynCarr’sATReader(1985)featuresextractsfromtheworkofJacuesEllul,RachelCarsonandIvanIllich,amongstothers,showinghowSchumacher’sideashadfoundaplacewithinthecounter-cultureoftheSeventies.Andyet,forallthat,Schumacherwaslargelyignoredbythemainstreamacademiccommunityofdevelopmenteconomists.Infact,asonerefereeforthisessaypointedout,heiscuriouslyabsentevenincontributionswhereonewouldmostexpecttofindhim,suchasEncounteringDevelopment,ArturoEscobar’s1995critiqueofthefield.Hislegacyishoweverevidentintheworkofseveralcritical,non-mainstreamfigures,includingnotonlytheearlyATaffiliatesthemselves,butlaterfiguressuchasPaulElkinsandManfredMax-Neef.25

***Withhindsight,onecanidentifyseveraldimensionstoSchumacher’sorginalityasaeconomicthinker.NotonlywasheoneofthefirstWesterncriticsofpostwardevelopment,buthewasalsooneofthefewtoassimilateinfluencesfromthe“South”andcarrythem“North”,goingagainstthedominantcurrent.InfluencedbyhisexperienceinBurmaandIndia,inhismatureworkheadvocatedGandhian“simplicity”and“non-violence”,andKumarappan“permanence”,orsustainability,asnecessaryelementsinthefuturedevelopmentofboththe“underdeveloped”countriesandtheWest.Traditionalism,oneofthemostsignificantmetaphysicalinfluenceonhimfromthe1950’sonwards,was24LongamemberoftheSoilAssociation,SchumacherwasitsPresidentfrom1970until1977.SeeGill(2010)andConford(2011).25See,forexample,Max-Neef(1992),Max-Neefetal(1991)andElkinsandMax-Neef(1992)aswellasElkins(1992).Forcriticalperspectives,seeRybczynski(1980)andWilloughby(1990).

12

elaboratedbythreewriters,Guénon,SchuonandCoomaraswamy,whoweresteepedinEasternspiritualtraditions.Andyet,Schumacher’sapparentopennesstonon-Westernideasshouldnotleadonetosimplisticconclusionsaboutthedirectionofcausality.Forexample,beforegoingtoBurma,whereheexpressedhisoppositiontodevelopmentplansthatwouldencouragetheexodusfromtheruralvillagestotheurbancentres,hehadalreadyabsorbedtheideasofBritishwritersoftheinterwarruralrevivalmovement,includingMassingham,Wrench,NorthbourneandBalfour,allofwhomwereconcernedwiththetransformationoftheEnglishcountryside.HisperspectiveonBurmawasthusshapedbyhisviewofEngland.His“intermediatetechnology”idea,too,withitsprescriptionofamiddlepathbetweenthereturntocraftandtheembraceofadvancedtechnology,althoughhighlyoriginal,wasalsoreliantonWesterninfluence.Communitieswereencouragedtocontinuewiththeirownactivities,aidedbycarefullychosen,Westerntechnologicalmeans.Eventhewayinwhichhepresentedtheidea–helpingotherstodobetterwhattheywerealreadydoing–revealedtheinfluenceofRuskin,who,incidentally,wasalreadyastronginfluenceonGandhi.Inshort,notwithstandingSchumacher’sopenness,whendiscussinghisideas,thedistinctionbetween“North”and“South”,or“West”and“East”,mustbeusedwithcaution.Ultimately,however,itisperhapsonlybyabandoningsuchgeographicaldistinctionsthatthetrueoriginalityofSchumachercanbestbeunderstood.For,inthefinalanalysis,hewasnota“developmenteconomist”,norevenmerelyapractitionerofthedismalscience.Ultimately,heisbestregardedasacriticofmodernity,inspiredbyadeepscepticismoftheentireWesternideaofscience,industryandprogress.Thisshapedhisviewofhumanity,beitintheso-calledFirst-orThirdWorlds,anditprovidesthekeytounderstandingbothhisbestsellingSmallisBeautifulandhislittle-knownlaterphilosophicalwork,AGuideforthePerplexed.Hisuniqueperspectiveallowedhimtorufflethefeathersoftheeconomicmainstreamandberememberedasaprophetbyanentiregeneration.

13

ReferencesBlack,Eugene(1960),“TheAgeofEconomicDevelopment”,EconomicJournal,Vol.70,No.278,June,pp.266-276Carr,Marilyn(1985)(ed.),TheATReader,London:IntermediateTechnologyPublicationsConford,Philip(2001),TheOriginsoftheOrganicMovement,FlorisBooks____________(2011)TheDevelopmentoftheOrganicNetwork:LinkingPeopleandThemes,1945-1995,FlorisBooksCoomaraswamy,Ananda(1912),ArtandSwadeshi,Madras:Ganesh__________________________(1949),TheBugbearofLiteracy,London:DennisDobsonElkins,Paul(1992),TheGaiaAtlasofGreenEconomics,NewYork:AnchorBooksElkins,PaulandManfredMax-Neef(1992),Real-LifeEconomics:UnderstandingWealthCreation,London:RoutledgeGill,Erin(2010),LadyEveBalfourandtheBritishorganicfoodandfarmingmovement,UnpublishedPhDthesis,Dept.ofHistory&WelshHistory,AberystwythUniversityHeisenberg,Werner(1958a)ThePhysicists’ConceptionofNature.London:HutchinsonScientificandTechnical(atranslationof(1955))________________(1958b)PhysicsandPhilosophy:theRevolutioninModernScience,NewYork:HarperHelleiner,Eric(2014),ForgottenFoundationsofBrettonWoods:InternationalDevelopmentandtheMakingofthePostwarOrder,Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellU.P.IntermediateTechnologyDevelopmentGroup(1967),ToolsforProgress1967/68:GuidetoEquipmentandMaterialsforSmall-scaleDevelopment,London:ITDGKaleçki,M.andE.F.Schumacher(1943)“InternationalClearingandLong-TermLending”,InstituteofStatistics,Oxford,BulletinVol.5,SupplementNo.5,August7,pp.29-33Kumarappa,J.C.(1958,orig.1945),EconomyofPermanence,4thed.,Rajghat,Kashi:Sarva-Seva-Sangh-PublicationLinton,Erica(1972),FragmentsofaVision:AJourneyThroughIndia’sGramdanVillages.NewDelhi:SocietyforDevelopingGramdans,withaforewordbyE.F.SchumacherLymington,Viscount(1938),FamineinEngland.London:RightBookClub

14

McRobie,George(1981),SmallisPossible,London:JonathanCapeMassingham,Harold(1945),TheNaturalOrder:EssaysinRuralHusbandry.London:DentMax-Neef,Manfred(1992),FromtheOutsideLookingIn:ExperiencesinBarefootEconomics,ZedBooks.__________________,AntonioElizaldeandMartinHopenhayn,HumanScaleDevelopment,ApexPressNorthbourne,Lord(1940),LooktotheLand.London:DentReggiani,AndrésHoracio(2007),God’sEugenicist:AlexisCarrelandtheSociobiologyofDecline,Oxford:BerghahnBooks.Robinson,Ronald(ed.)(1971),DevelopingtheThirdWorld:theExperienceoftheNineteen-Sixties,CambridgeU.P.Rostow,W.W.(1956),“TheTake-offintoSelf-sustainedGrowth”,EconomicJournal,Vol.66,No.261,pp.25-48,MarchRbyczynski,Witold(1980),PaperHeroes.AppropriateTechnology:PanaceaorPipedream?NewYork:Anchor/DoubledaySchumacher,E.F.(1943a),“MultilateralClearing”,Economica,NewSeries,Vol.10,No.38,(May),pp.150–165___________________(1943b),“TheNewCurrencyPlans”,InstituteofStatistics,Oxford,BulletinVol.5,SupplementNo.5,August7,pp.8-29___________________(1945),“Anglo-EgyptianCurrencyRelations”,InstituteofStatistics,Oxford,BulletinVol.7,No.2,February3,pp.30–36.__________________(1959a),“EconomicsinaBuddhistCountry”inNarayan,Jayaprakash,APleaforReconstructionofIndianPolity,(Varanasi,Wardha:A.B.SarvaSevaSangh),AppendixA,pp.81–88.___________________(1960),“Non-violentEconomics”,TheObserver,Aug.21.___________________(1962),TheRootsofEconomicGrowth,Varanasi:GandhianInstituteofStudies.___________________(1964a),“RuralIndustries”inClarketal,IndiaatMidpassage.London:OverseasDevelopmentInstitute,pp.30–39

15

____________________(1964b),“Industrializationthrough‘IntermediateTechnology’”,CambridgeConferenceonDevelopmentreport1964,reprintedinResurgence,Vol.1,No.2,July-Aug.1966;inRobinson(1971),pp.85–93,andinSchumacher(1997),pp.130–142___________________(1965a),“BuddhistEconomics”,inWint,Guy(ed.)(1965),Asia:AHandbook,NYandWashington:Praeger,pp.695–701,reprintedinSchumacher(1973),pp.48-56____________________(1965b),“HowtoHelpThemHelpThemselves”,TheObserver:WeekendReview,August,reprintedinMcRobie(1981),pp.25–31.____________________(1973),SmallisBeautiful:EconomicsasifPeopleMattered.London:Blond&Briggs_____________________(1977),AGuideforthePerplexed,NewYork,London:HarperPerennial____________________(1979),GoodWork,NewYork:HarperColophon,PrefacebyGeo.McRobie.EpiloguebyPeterN.Gillingham.____________________(1997),ThisIBelieve,andotheressays,Totnes,Devon:GreenBooks,withaforewordbySatishKumarandanintroductionbyDianeSchumacher.Stewart,Frances(1977),TechnologyandUnderdevelopment,London:MacmillanToye,John(2011),“TheWorldImprovementPlansofFritzSchumacher”,CambridgeJournalofEconomics,Vol.36,No.2,pp.387-403Willoughby,Kelvin(1990),TechnologyChoice:ACritiqueoftheAppropriateTechnologyMovement.LondonandBoulder:WestviewPressWood,Barbara(1984),E.F.Schumacher:HisLifeandThought,NewYork:Harper&Row