2001
Human Development Report - Overview
(the
entire report is available at
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/en/pdf/chaptertwo.pdf)
This
Report, like all previous Human Development
Reports, is about
people. It is about
how
people can create and use technology to improve their lives. It is also about
forging new
public
policies to lead the revolutions in information and communications technology
and
biotechnology
in the direction of human development.
People
all over the world have high hopes that these new technologies will lead to
healthier
lives,
greater social freedoms, increased knowledge and more productive livelihoods.
There
is a great rush to be part of the network age—the combined result of the
technological
revolutions
and globalization that are integrating markets and linking people across all
kinds
of
traditional boundaries.
At
the same time, there is great fear of the unknown. Technological change, like
all change,
poses
risks, as shown by the industrial disaster in Bhopal (India), the nuclear
disaster in Chernobyl
(Ukraine),
the birth defects from thalidomide and the depletion of the ozone layer by
chlorofluorocarbons.
And the more novel and fundamental is the change, the less is known
about
its potential consequences and hidden costs. Hence there is a general mistrust
of scientists,
private
corporations and governments— indeed, of the whole technology establishment.
This
Report looks specifically at how new technologies will affect developing
countries
and
poor people. Many people fear that these technologies may be of little use to
the developing
world—or
that they might actually widen the already savage inequalities between North
and
South, rich and poor. Without innovative public policy, these technologies could
become
a
source of exclusion, not a tool of progress. The needs of poor people could
remain neglected,
new
global risks left unmanaged. But managed well, the rewards could be greater than
the
risks.
At
the United Nations Millennium Summit, world leaders agreed on a set of
quantified
and
monitorable goals for development and poverty eradication to achieve by 2015.
Progress
the
world has made over the past 30 years shows that these goals are attainable. But
many developing
countries
will not achieve them without much faster progress. While 66 countries are
on
track to reduce under-five mortality rates by two-thirds, 93 countries with 62%
of the world’s
people
are lagging, far behind or slipping. Similarly, while 50 countries are on track
to achieve
the
safe water goal, 83 countries with 70% of the world’s people are not. More
than 40% of the
world’s
people are living in countries on track to halve income poverty by 2015. Yet
they are
in
just 11 countries that include China and India (with 38% of the world’s
people), and 70 countries
are
far behind or slipping. Without China and India, only 9 countries with 5% of the
world’s
people are on track to halve income poverty. New technology policies can spur
progress
towards reaching these and other goals.
1.
The technology divide does not have to follow the income divide. Throughout
history,
technology
has been a powerful tool for human development and poverty reduction.
It
is often thought that people gain access to technological innovations—more
effective medicine
or
transportation, the telephone or the Internet—once they have more income. This
is
true—economic
growth creates opportunities for useful innovations to be created and diffused.
But
the process can also be reversed: investments in technology, like investments in
education,
can equip people with better tools and make them more productive and prosperous.
Technology
is a tool, not just a reward, for growth and development.
In
fact, the 20th century’s unprecedented gains in advancing human development
and
eradicating
poverty came largely from technological breakthroughs:
•
In the late 1930s mortality rates began to decline rapidly in Asia, Africa and
Latin America,
and
by the 1970s life expectancy at birth had increased to more than 60 years. In
Europe
that
same gain took more than a century and a half starting in the early 1800s. The
rapid
gains
of the 20th century were propelled by medical technology—antibiotics and
vaccines
—while
progress in the 19th century depended on slower social and economic changes,
such
as
better sanitation and diets.
•
The reduction in undernutrition in South Asia from around 40% in the 1970s to
23% in
1997—and
the end of chronic famine—was made possible by technological breakthroughs
in
plant breeding, fertilizers and pesticides in the 1960s that doubled world
cereal yields in just
40
years. That is an astonishingly short period relative to the 1,000 years it took
for English
wheat
yields to quadruple from 0.5 to 2.0 tonnes per hectare.
These
examples show how technology can cause discontinuous change: a single innovation
can
quickly and significantly change the course of an entire society. (Consider what
an
affordable
vaccine or cure for AIDS could do for Sub-Saharan Africa.)
Moreover,
technology-supported advances in health, nutrition, crop yields and employment
are
usually not just one-time gains. They typically have a multiplier
effect—creating a
virtuous
cycle, increasing people’s knowledge, health and productivity, and raising
incomes
and
building capacity for future innovation— all feeding back into human
development.
Today’s
technological transformations are more rapid (the power of a computer chip
doubles
every
18–24 months without cost increase) and more fundamental (genetic engineering
breakthroughs)
and are driving down costs (the cost of one megabit of storage fell from $5,257
in
1970 to $0.17 in 1999). These transformations multiply the possibilities of what
people can
do
with technology in areas that include:
•
Participation. The Internet, the wireless telephone and other information
and communications
technology
enable people to communicate and obtain information in ways never
before
possible, dramatically opening up possibilities to participate in decisions that
affect
their
lives. From the fax machine’s role in the fall of communism in 1989 to the
email campaigns
that
helped topple Philippine President Joseph Estrada in January 2001, information
and
communications technology provides powerful new ways for citizens to demand
accountability
from
their governments and in the use of public resources.
•
Knowledge. Information and communications technology can provide rapid,
low-cost
access
to information about almost all areas of
Turkey
to long-distance medical diagnosis in the
grain
in India, the Internet is breaking barriers of geography, making markets more
efficient,
creating
opportunities for income generation and enabling increased local participation.
•
New medicines. In 1989 biotechnological research into hepatitis B
resulted in a breakthrough
vaccine.
Today more than 300 biopharmaceutical products are on the market or seeking
regulatory
approval,
and many hold equal promise.
Much
more can be done to develop vaccines and treatments for HIV/AIDS and other
diseases
endemic in some developing countries.
•
New crop varieties. Trangenics offer the hope of crops with higher
yields, pest- and
drought-resistant
properties and superior nutritional characteristics—especially for farmers
in
ecological zones left behind by the green revolution In China genetically
modified rice offers
15%
higher yields without the need for increases in other farm inputs, and modified
cotton
(Bt
cotton) allows pesticide spraying to be reduced from 30 to 3 times.
•
New employment and export opportunities.
The
recent downturn in the Nasdaq has quieted
for
some developing countries remains tremendous as electronic commerce breaks
barriers
of
distance and market information. Revenues from India’s information technology
industry
jumped
from $150 million in 1990 to $4 billion in 1999.
All
this is just the beginning. Much more can be expected as more technologies are
adapted
to
the needs of developing countries.
2.
The market is a powerful engine of technological progress—but it is not
powerful
enough
to create and diffuse the technologies needed to eradicate poverty.
Technology
is created in response to market pressures—not the needs of poor people, who
have
little purchasing power. Research and development, personnel and finance are
concentrated
in
rich countries, led by global corporations and following the global market
demand
dominated
by high-income consumers.
In
1998 the 29 OECD countries spent $520 billion on research and development—more
than
the combined economic output of the world’s 30 poorest countries. OECD
countries,
with
19% of the world’s people, also accounted for 91% of the 347,000 new patents
issued in
1998.
And in these countries more than 60% of research and development is now carried
out
by the private sector, with a correspondingly smaller role for public sector
research.
As
a result research neglects opportunities to develop technology for poor people.
For instance,
in
1998 global spending on health research was $70 billion, but just $300 million
was
dedicated
to vaccines for HIV/AIDS and about $100 million to malaria research. Of 1,223
new
drugs
marketed worldwide between 1975 and 1996, only 13 were developed to treat
tropical
diseases—and
only 4 were the direct result of pharmaceutical industry research. The picture
is
much the same for research on agriculture and
Technology
is also unevenly diffused. OECD countries contain 79% of the world’s
Internet
users.
Africa has less international bandwidth than São Paulo, Brazil. Latin
America’s
bandwidth,
in turn, is roughly equal to that of Seoul, Republic of Korea.
These
disparities should come as no surprise. After all, electric power generation and
grid
delivery
were first developed in 1831 but are still not available to a third of the
world’s people.
Some
2 billion people still do not have access to low-cost essential medicines (such
as penicillin),
most
of which were developed decades ago. Half of Africa’s one-year-olds have not
been
immunized against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio and measles. And oral
rehydration
therapy,
a simple and life-saving treatment, is not used in nearly 40% of diarrhoea cases
in
developing
countries.
Inadequate
financing compounds the problem. High-tech startups in the United States
have
thrived on venture capital. But in many developing countries, where even basic
financial
services
are underdeveloped, there is little prospect of such financing. Moreover, the
lack
of
intellectual property protection in some countries can discourage private
investors.
The
global map of technological achievement in this Report shows huge inequalities
between
countries—not
just in terms of innovation and access, but also in the education and skills
required
to use technology effectively. The Report’s technology achievement index (TAI)
provides
a
country-by-country measure of how countries are doing in these areas.
Technology
is also unevenly diffused within countries. India, home to a world-class
technology
hub
in Bangalore, ranks at the lower end of the TAI. Why? Because Bangalore is a
small
enclave in a country where the average adult received only 5.1 years of
education, adult
illiteracy
is 44%, electricity consumption is half that in China and there are just 28
telephones
for
every 1,000 people.
3.
Developing countries may gain especially high rewards from new technologies, but
they
also face especially severe challenges in managing the risks.
The
current debate in Europe and the United States over genetically modified crops
mostly
ignores
the concerns and needs of the developing world. Western consumers who do not
face
food shortages or nutritional deficiencies or work in fields are more likely to
focus on
food
safety and the potential loss of biodiversity, while farming communities in
developing
countries
are more likely to focus on potentially higher yields and greater nutritional
value,
and on the reduced need to spray pesticides that can damage soil and sicken
farmers.
Similarly,
the recent effort to globally ban the manufacture of DDT did not reflect the
pesticide’s
benefits
in preventing malaria in tropical countries.
Moreover,
while some risks can be assessed and managed globally, others must take into
account
local considerations. The potential
children
from thalidomide are no different for people in Malaysia than in Morocco.
But
gene flow from genetically modified corn would be more likely in an environment
with
many
corn-related wild species than in one without such indigenous plants.
Environmental
risks in particular are often specific to individual ecosystems and need to be
assessed
case by case. In considering the possible environmental consequences of
genetically
modified
crops, the example of European rabbits in Australia offers a warning. Six
rabbits
were
introduced there in the 1850s. Now there are 100 million, destroying native
flora and fauna
and
costing local industries $370 million a year.
If
new technologies offer particular benefits for the developing world, they also
pose greater
risks.
Technology-related problems are often the result of poor policies, inadequate
regulation
and
lack of transparency. (For instance, poor management by regulators led to the
use
of
HIV-infected blood in transfusions during the 1980s and to the spread of mad cow
disease
more
recently.) From that perspective, most developing countries are at a
disadvantage because
they
lack the policies and institutions needed to manage the risks well.
Professional
researchers and trained technicians are essential for adapting new technologies
for
local use. A shortage of skilled personnel—from laboratory researchers to
extension
service
officers—can seriously constrain a country’s ability to create a strong
regulatory
system.
Even in developing countries with more advanced capacity, such as Argentina and
Egypt,
biosafety
systems have nearly exhausted national expertise.
The
cost of establishing and maintaining a regulatory framework can also place a
severe financial
demand
on poor countries. In the United States three major, well-funded agencies—the
Department
of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection
Agency—are
all involved in regulating genetically modified organisms. But even these
institutions
are
appealing for budget increases to deal with the new challenges raised by
biotechnology.
In
stark contrast, regulatory agencies in developing countries survive on very
little funding.
Stronger
policies and mechanisms are needed at the regional and global levels, and
should
include active participation from developing countries.
4.
The technology revolution and globalization are creating a network age—and
that is
changing
how technology is created and diffused.
Two
simultaneous shifts in technology and economics—the technological revolution
and globalization
—are
combining to create a new network age. Just as the steam engine and electricity
enhanced
physical power to make possible the industrial revolution, digital and genetic
breakthroughs
are enhancing brain power.
The
industrial age was structured around vertically integrated organizations with
high
costs
of communications, information and transportation. But the network age is
structured
along
horizontal networks, with each organization
networks
cross continents, with hubs from Silicon
Gauteng
(South Africa) to Bangalore.
Many
developing countries are already tapping into these networks, with significant
benefits
for
human development. For instance, new malaria drugs created in Thailand and Viet
Nam
were based on international research as well as local knowledge.
Scientific
research is increasingly collaborative between institutions and countries. In
1995–97
scientists in the United States co-wrote articles with scientists from 173 other
countries,
scientists
in Brazil with 114, in Kenya with 81, in Algeria with 59. Global corporations,
often
based in North America, Europe or Japan, now typically have research facilities
in several
countries and outsource production worldwide.
In
1999, 52% of Malaysia’s exports were hightech, 44% of Costa Rica’s, 28% of
Mexico’s,
26%
of the Philippines’s. Hubs in India and elsewhere now use the Internet to
provide realtime
software
support, data processing and customer services for clients all over the world.
International
labour markets and skyrocketing demand for information and communications
technology
personnel make top scientists and other professionals globally mobile. Thus
developing
country
investments in education subsidize industrial country economies. Many highly
educated
people migrate abroad even though their home country may have invested heavily
in
creating
an educated labour force. (For instance, 100,000 Indian professionals a year are
expected
to
take visas recently issued by the United States—an estimated resource loss for
India of
$2
billion.) But this migration can be a brain gain as well as a brain drain: it
often generates a
diaspora
that can provide valuable networks of finance, business contacts and skill
transfer for
the
home country.
5.
Even in the network age, domestic policy still matters. All countries, even the
poorest,
need
to implement policies that encourage innovation, access and the development of
advanced
skills.
Not
all countries need to be on the cutting edge of global technological advance.
But in the network
age
every country needs the capacity to understand and adapt global technologies for
local
needs.
Farmers and firms need to master new technologies developed elsewhere to stay
competitive
in
global markets. Doctors seeking the best care for their patients need to
introduce new
products
and procedures from global advances in medicine. In this environment the key to
a
country’s
success will be unleashing the creativity
Nurturing
creativity requires flexible, competitive, dynamic economic environments. For
most
developing countries that means building on reforms that emphasize openness—to
new
ideas, new products and new investment, especially in telecommunications.
Closed-market
policies,
such as telecommunications laws that favour government monopolies, still isolate
some
countries from global networks. In others a lack of proper regulation has led to
private monopolies
with
the same isolating effects. In Sri Lanka competition among providers of
information
and
communications technology has led to increased investment, increased
connectivity
and
better service. Chile offers a successful model for pursuing privatization and
regulation simultaneously.
But
open markets and competition are not enough. At the heart of nurturing
creativity is
expanding
human skills. Technological change dramatically raises the premium every country
should
place on investing in the education and training of its people. And in the
network age,
concentrating
on primary education will not suffice—the advanced skills developed in
secondary
and
tertiary schools are increasingly important.
Vocational
and on-the-job training also cannot be neglected. When technology is changing,
enterprises
have to invest in training workers to stay competitive. Smaller enterprises in
particular
can
benefit from public policies that encourage coordination and economies of scale
and
that partly subsidize their efforts. Studies in Colombia, Indonesia, Malaysia
and Mexico
have
shown that such training provides a considerable boost to firm productivity.
Market
failures are pervasive where knowledge and skills are concerned. That is why in
every
technologically advanced country today, governments have provided funding to
substitute
for
market demand with incentives, regulations and public programmes. But such
funding
has not been mobilized to do the same for most developing countries, from
domestic
or
international sources.
More
generally, governments need to establish broad technology strategies in
partnership
with
other key stakeholders. Governments should not try to “pick winners” by
favouring certain sectors
or
firms. But they can identify areas where coordination makes a difference because
no single
private
investor will act alone (in building in- frastructure, for example). Costa Rica
has been
successful in implementing such a strategy.
6.
National policies will not be sufficient to compensate for global market
failures. New
international
initiatives and the fair use of global rules are needed to channel new
technologies
towards
the most urgent needs of the world’s poor people.
No
national government can single-handedly cope with global market failures. Yet
there is no
global
framework for supporting research and development that addresses the common
needs
of
poor people in many countries and regions.
What
is the research needed for? The list is long and fast changing. Some top
priorities:
•
Vaccines for malaria, HIV and tuberculosis as well as lesser-known diseases like
sleeping
sickness
and river blindness.
•
New varieties of sorghum, cassava, maize and other staple foods of Sub-Saharan
Africa.
•
Low-cost computers and wireless connectivity as well as prepaid chip-card
software for
ecommerce
without credit cards.
•
Low-cost fuel cells and photovoltaics for decentralized electricity supply.
What
can be done? Rich countries could support a global effort to create incentives
and
new
partnerships for research and development, boosted by new and expanded sources
of
financing.
Civil society groups and activists, the press and policy-makers could nurture
public
understanding
on difficult issues such as the differential pricing of pharmaceuticals and the
fair
implementation of intellectual property rights. The lesson of this Report is
that at the
global
level it is policy, not charity, that will ultimately determine whether new
technologies become
a
tool for human development everywhere.
Creative
incentives and new partnerships.
At
a time when universities, private companies and public institutions are
reshaping their research
relationships,
new international partnerships for development can bring together the
strengths
of each while balancing any conflicts of interest. Many approaches to creating
incentives
are
possible—from purchase funds and prizes to tax credits and public grants.
One
promising model is the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which brings
together
academics,
industry, foundations and public researchers through innovative intellectual
property
rights
agreements that enable each partner to pursue its interests while jointly
pursuing a vaccine
for
the HIV/AIDS strain common in Africa
Dedicated
funds for research and development.
At
the moment it is not even possible to track how much each government or
international
institution
contributes to research and development to deal with global market failures.
For
instance, it is relatively easy to find out how
given
country—but much harder to determine how much of that goes for medical
research. A
first
step towards increased funding in this area would be establishing a mechanism
for measuring
current
contributions.
Private
foundations, such as Rockefeller, Ford and now Gates and Wellcome, have made
substantial
contributions to research and development targeted at the needs of developing
countries.
But these contributions are far from sufficient to meet global needs, and at
least $10
billion
in additional funds could be mobilized from:
•
Bilateral donors. A 10% increase in official development assistance, if
dedicated to research
and
development, would put $5.5 billion on the table.
•
Developing country governments. Diverting 10% of Sub-Saharan Africa’s
military spending
in
1999 would have raised $700 million.
•
International organizations. In 2000 about $350 million of the World
Bank’s income was
transferred
to its interest-free arm for lending to the poorest countries. A much smaller
amount
dedicated
to technology development for low income countries would go a long way.
•
Debt-for-technology swaps. In 1999 official debt service payments by
developing countries
totalled
$78 billion. Swapping just 1.3% of this debt service for technology research and
development
would
have raised more than $1 billion.
•
Private foundations in developing countries.
Developing
countries could introduce tax incentives to encourage their billionaires to set
up
foundations. Rich individuals from Brazil to Saudi Arabia to India to Malaysia
could help
fund
regionally relevant research.
•
Industry. With their financial, intellectual and research resources,
high-tech companies
could
make bigger contributions than they donow. The head of research at Novartis has
proposed
that
these companies devote a percentage of their profits to research on
non-commercial
products.
Differential
pricing. From
pharmaceuticals to computer software, key technology products
are
in demand worldwide. An effective global market would encourage different prices
for
them in different countries, but the current system does not.
A
producer seeking to maximize global profits on a new technology would ideally
divide
the
market into different income groups and sell at prices that maximize profits in
each. With
technology,
where the main cost to the seller is usually research rather than production,
such
tiered
pricing could lead to an identical product being sold in Cameroon for just
one-tenth—
or
one-hundredth—the price in Canada. But in the network age segmenting the
international
market
is not easy. With increasingly open borders and growing Internet sales,
producers
in rich countries fear that re-imports of heavily discounted products will
undercut the
higher
domestic prices charged to cover overhead
if
products do not creep back into the home market, knowledge about lower prices
will—creating
the
potential for consumer backlash.
Without
mechanisms to deal with these threats, producers are more likely to set global
prices (for
AIDS
drugs, for instance) that are unaffordable for the citizens of poor countries.
Part
of the battle to establish differential pricing must be won through consumer
education.
Civil
society groups and activists, the press and policy-makers could help the
citizens
of
rich countries understand that it is only fair for people in developing
countries to pay less
for
medicines and other critical technology products. Without higher prices in rich
countries,
companies
would have far less incentive to invest in new research and development.
The
broader challenge for public, private and non-profit decision-makers is to agree
on
ways
to segment the global market so that key technology products can be sold at low
cost in
developing
countries without destroying markets —and industry incentives—in industrial
countries.
This goal should be high on the agenda in upcoming international trade
negotiations.
Fair
use of intellectual property rights
and
fair implementation of TRIPS. Intellectual
property rights are being tightened and increasingly
used
worldwide. The World Intellectual Property Organization’s Patent Cooperation
Treaty
accepts a single international application valid in many countries; the number
of
international applications rose from 7,000 in 1985 to 74,000 in 1999. In the
midst of this
boom,
there are two new hurdles for developing countries and poor people.
First,
intellectual property rights can go too far. Some patent applications disclose
their innovations
with
great obscurity, stretching patent
researchers
to understand. In 2000 the World Intellectual Property Organization received 30
patent
applications over 1,000 pages long, with several reaching 140,000 pages. From
patents on
genes
whose function may not be known to patents on such ecommerce methods as oneclick
purchasing,
many believe that the criteria of non-obviousness and industrial utility are
being
interpreted too loosely.
In
particular, patent systems lay open indigenous and community-based innovation to
private
sector claims. Ill-awarded patents, granted despite prior art, obviousness or
lack of
innovation—such
as a US patent on the Mexican enola bean—are contributing to the silent
theft
of centuries of developing country knowledge and assets.
Second,
current practices are preventing the fair implementation of the World Trade
Organization’s
agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
As
signatories to the 1994 TRIPS agreement, developing countries are implementing
national
systems
of intellectual property rights following an agreed set of minimum standards,
such as 20
years
of patent protection. A single set of minimum rules may seem to create a level
playing
field,
since one set of rules applies to all. But as currently practiced, the game is
not fair be-
cause
the players are of such unequal strength, economically and institutionally.
For
low-income countries, implementing and enforcing intellectual property rights
put
stress
on scarce resources and administrative skills. Without good advice on creating
national
legislation
that makes the most of what TRIPS allows, and under intense external pressure to
introduce
legislation beyond that required by TRIPS, countries can legislate themselves
into
a
disadvantageous position. Moreover, the high costs of disputes with the
world’s leading nations
are
daunting, discouraging developing countries from asserting their rights.
If
the game is to be played fairly, at least two changes are needed. First, the
TRIPS agreement
must
be implemented in a way that enables developing countries to use safeguard
provisions
that
secure access to technologies of overriding
For
instance, under a range of special conditions TRIPS allows governments to issue
compulsory
licenses
for companies to manufacture products that have been patented by others.
Such
licenses are already in use from Canada and Japan to the United Kingdom and the
United
States
for products including pharmaceuticals, computers and tow trucks. They are used
particularly
as
antitrust measures to prevent reduced competition and higher prices. But so far
these
provisions have not been used south of the equator. Developing countries, like
other countries,
should
be able to do in practice what TRIPS allows them to do in theory.
Second,
commitments under TRIPS and many other multilateral agreements to promote
technology
transfer to developing countries are paper promises, often neglected in
implementation.
They
must be brought to life.
The
heart of the problem is that although technology may be a tool for development,
it is
also
a means of competitive advantage in the global economy. Access to patented
environmental
technologies
and pharmaceuticals, for example, may be essential for combating global
warming
and for saving lives worldwide. But for countries that own and sell them, they
are a
global
market opportunity. Only when the two interests are reconciled—through, say,
adequate
public
financing—will fair implementation of the TRIPS agreement become a real
possibility.
Policy—not
charity—to build technological capacity in developing countries
Global
arrangements can only be as effective as national commitments to back them. The
first
step
is for governments to recognize that technology policy affects a host of
development issues,
including
public health, education and job creation.
There
are many successful examples of international corporate philanthropy involving
technology.
For instance, in-kind donations by
lives,
and the agreement to give poor farmers access to vitamin A–enhanced rice could
help reduce
global
malnutrition. These initiatives have tremendous appeal—they can be a win-win
proposition
in which a country gets access to vital new technologies and a company get good
public
relations and sometimes tax incentives.
But
these kinds of industry initiatives are no substitute for structural policy
responses
from
governments. High-profile projects may gain such support from industry, but less
newsworthy
research
cannot depend on it. When HIV/AIDS drugs and golden rice are no longer
in
the news every day, will Chagas disease and
same
global public support?
Developing
countries should not forever be held hostage to the research agendas set by
global
market
demand. If any form of development is empowering in the 21st century, it is
development
that
unleashes human creativity and creates technological capacity. Many developing
countries are
already
taking up the challenge to make this happen.
Global
initiatives that recognize this will not only provide solutions to immediate
crises but
also
build means to cope with future ones.
The
ultimate significance of the network age is that it can empower people by
enabling them
to
use and contribute to the world’s collective knowledge. And the great
challenge of the new
century
is to ensure that the entire human race
48 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001
A2.1 Technology
achievement
