81 



V. Importance of Long-R.ange, Comprehensive, and Integrated 



Development Programs 



It is increasingly recognized that the factual and intellectual under- 

 pinning of the point IV program was madequate. "The available records 

 indicate that the United States embarked on its program for economic 

 development and technical assistance * * * without the elaborate 

 studies that had characterized the plamiing of the European recovery- 

 program." ^^ Not only was the background research and planning 

 incomplete, but there was a lack of emphasis on the need for the 

 planning and fhiancmg of long-range and major projects, on the need 

 to establish sound criteria for the selection of projects, and the con- 

 struction of development programs on a country-by-country basis.^° 

 Tlie early program has been characterized as "narrow and short- 

 sighted" m conception, with "too much attention * * * to the crises 

 of the moment and not enough emphasis given to long-term improve- 

 ments in societies." ®' 



The attitude of those who framed this program seemed to be that 

 benefits would accrue more or less automatically and comprehensively 

 from the random application of technical knowledge which im- 

 jjoverished peoples were eagerl}^ awaiting to absorb and use. For 

 example, in presenting their case to the Congress and to the public, 

 the State Department said: 



Increasing numbers of these people no longer accept poverty as an inescapable 

 fact of life. They are becoming aware of the gap between their living standards 

 and those in the more highly developed countries. They are looking for a way out 

 of their misery. ^^ 



In taking this optimistic position, the Administration neglected to 

 account for those nontechnical and noneconomic factors which would 

 prevent an effective grafting and diffusion of modern technology: 

 the social inertia which would prevent the peasant or industrial worker 

 in the underdeveloped country from perceiving the potential benefits 

 of modern science and technolog}^; the traditional and cultural tastesj 

 mores, beliefs, and acti\aties that would obstruct the acceptance of 

 new ideas; and the cultural shock which would ensue from the intro- 

 duction of foreign methods, technicians, and products. ^^ 



U.S. foreign assistance has always been recognized as inherently 

 long range in character. As early as 1949 and 1950 the State Depart- 

 ment acknowledged this necessary feature: 



Economic development is a long-term process. Consequently, this must be a 

 long-range program. Its duration and success will be measured in decades rather 

 than years. 8* 



59 Harry Price. "The Marshall Plan and Its Meaning." Cited in U.S. Library of Congress. Legislative 

 Reference Service. "U.S. Foreign Aid: Its Purposes, Scope, Administration, and Related Information." 

 June 11, 1959. 86th Cong., 1st sess. H. Doc. 116. (Wasliington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959) p. 85. 



6i) Cliarles Wolf, Jr. "Foreign Aid: Theory and Practice in Southern Asia" (Princeton, N.J., Princeton 

 University Press, 1960), p. 59, as cited in Higgins. op. cit.. p. 75. 



61 HoUis B. Chenery. "Objectives and Criteria for Foreign Assistance." In: "The United States and the 

 Developing Economics." Ed. by Gustav Ranis (New York, W. W. Norton and Co., Inc.) pp. 79-91. 



63 Statemeul of Hon. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State. In Senate. Act for International Development 

 hearings, op. cit., p. 4. 



83 For an excellent summary of the obstacles to the technology transfer in the less developed world based 

 on 506 case studies tiiroughout recent history, see: Everett M. Rogers. "Diflusion of Innovations" (New 

 York, the Free Press, 1962), 316 p., bibliogi-aphy and index. See also Melvin Kranzberg. "Comments 

 by Melvin Kranzberg." John Joseph Murphy. "The Transfer of Technology: Retrospect and Pros- 

 pect," pp. 37-47; and Edwin Mansfield. "Comments by Edwin Mansfield." Jan Kraenta. "Economic 

 Theory and Transfer of Technology," pp. 76-80. In Daniel L. Spencer et al. "Transfer of Technology to 

 Developing Countries." December 1966. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Bureau of Standards. 

 Institute of Applied Technology. Defense Documentation Supply Center (December 1966), 260 pages; 

 and Richard N. Adams. "Etliics and the Social Anthropologist in Latin America," American Behavioral 

 Scientist (.June 1967), pp. 16-21. 



w "Point 4: Cooperative Program for Aid in the Development of Economically Underdeveloped Areas" 

 (rev. January 1950), op. cit., p. 6. 



99-044—69 7 



