Sometimes, it's tempting to run before you can walk. And to get rich quick, some poor countries decide to make big leaps into new industries. The idea: skip some of the parts of regular development, and compete with more developed nations sooner rather than later.
But as New Scientist points out, that often fails because supply chains—whether they be for power, labor, raw materials, or something else—in poorer countries can be too chaotic to support jumps in technological complexity. Power outages happen. Workers don't show up. Parts get stolen.
And when things go wrong, it's easier to revert to old ways than fix the problems. Describing a new analysis in Nature Human Behaviour, researchers from Columbia University call this a poverty trap, in which "agents adapt to frequent disruptions by producing simpler, less valuable goods, yet disruptions persist."
Their research suggests that so-called buffers to disruption—like stockpiles of parts or sufficient emergency power generation capacity—are critical for an economy gradually evolving from, say, farming to manufacturing. Those buffers grow and shrink as a particular industrial push advances, and then the supply chains get a chance to catch up.
The finding, the team suggests, helps explain "why ‘big push’ policies can fail and ... underscores the importance of reliability and gradual increases in technological complexity." To that point, this MIT Technology Review interview does a wonderful job of explaining how light-touch technological interventions can often have some of the biggest impacts on poorer countries.
The inside story of how ChatGPT was built from the people who made it
Exclusive conversations that take us behind the scenes of a cultural phenomenon.
How Rust went from a side project to the world’s most-loved programming language
For decades, coders wrote critical systems in C and C++. Now they turn to Rust.
ChatGPT is about to revolutionize the economy. We need to decide what that looks like.
New large language models will transform many jobs. Whether they will lead to widespread prosperity or not is up to us.
Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?
An approach that promised to democratize design may have done the opposite.
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.