Design Development E-Book

Gabriel Patrocínio

• Herausgeber: Editora Blucher
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 487

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019

Beschreibung

"The subject of Design Policies is slowly growing to be broadly discussed, although most of the time from within a design practitioners' and design enthusiasts' bubble. Public administration is gradually embracing design from another perspective - using Design Thinking to develop programmes and services. Lawmakers and government executives are still distant, frequently without a real knowledge of design and its potential. Governments (and designers as well) seem to be contented by design promotion actions or programmes, which are frequently wrongly accepted as a design policy. From this prospect, this book intends to be a contribution to the debate of Design Policies nourished by past experiences and reflections, but also from current practices - as in Europe and China, for example. The book was originally meant in hindsight of a document produced in the seventies by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, UNIDO, within the context of a partnership with the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design, ICSID. This partnership resulted in a document discussing design as a driver of economic growth, prepared by Gui Bonsiepe in 1973, and then summarized by the UNIDO Secretariat in 1975 as the Basic guidelines for policy of industrial design in developing countries. Both documents were made available for this book by UNIDO, and are reproduced here as appendices. Although originally aimed at developing countries, after these four decades of unsettling growth of wicked problems, this theme deserves to be reviewed and discussed thoroughly. Design might play a very significant role when approaching contemporary problems such as rearranging urban spaces, urban mobility, tourism, immigration, housing, violence, and environment among others. These - not so new - wicked problems prompts to a whole new perspective on design and public design policies that goes beyond the original context here. The perspective of the "Third World" economy (as it was known at the time) might offer insights to understand and perhaps solve problems of any size economy - especially if we consider the aspects of local or regional problems. It is time to exercise empathy towards someone else's problems and to reflect under different scales and measures, and design seem to be the perfect instrument for it. Mugendi M'Rithaa, former President of ICSID (currently the WDO, World Design Organization) saluted the book as "the most important contribution on this field in the last ten years" (cited in the final remarks of his interview in the chapter Design in Africa: I participate, therefore I am). In Brazil the book was awarded twice - initially at the Objeto:Brasil International Design Award in May 2016, and then later at the same year at the MCB (Museum of the Brazilian Home) Design Awards of 2016. The jury of this later has acclaimed the book as "a theoretical and academic milestone, with potential to change the current practice and understanding of Design." After the successful launch in Portugal with conferences in three design schools in 2016, the book was selected in 2017 to the exhibition Brasil: Hoje at MUDE, Lisbon's Museum of Fashion and Design. The curator, Frederico Duarte, highlighted in the catalogue: "The first and indispensable book on design and development in the Portuguese language." In 2018 the book was selected in Spain to be part of BID, the Ibero-American Design Biennial, in Madrid. In the same year was published an e-book edition in Portuguese to make it more accessible, at the same time that this first English edition started being prepared."

Leseprobe

Contents

About the book

Adélia Borges (I); Letícia Castro (II)

Note to the Portuguese edition

Note to the first English edition

Foreword: UNIDO and industrial design

Gustavo Aishemberg

Foreword: The role of design in the knowledge area

Edna dos Santos-Duisenberg

Why discuss design policies? - An introduction

Gabriel Patrocínio

1. Design for development: mapping the context

Victor Margolin

2. Development patterns of industrial design in the Third World: a conceptual model for newly industrialized countries

H. Alpay Er

3. Design and developing countries: the dialectics of design for need vs. design for development

Gabriel Patrocínio

4. 40 years later

Interview with Gui Bonsiepe, by Gabriel Patrocínio and José Mauro Nunes

5. From Latin America to Latin America: design as a tool for economic and cultural development

Juan Camilo Buitrago & Marcos da Costa Braga

6. From Prebisch to the new developmentalism: theory and practice of industrial policies

Robson Gonçalves & Roberto Aragão

7. Inside India’s eternal “timelessness” – does design throw up more questions than answers?

Ajanta Sen & Ravi Poovaiah

8. Design in Africa: I participate, therefore I am

Interview with Mugendi K. M’Rithaa, by Gabriel Patrocínio

9. Design for development: a perspective of China

Sylvia Xihui Liu & Cai Jun

10. A paradigm shift in policy: integrating design into the European innovation agenda

Gisele Raulik-Murphy, Darragh Murphy & Anna Whicher

11. Consumption and development: perspectives, limits and dilemmas of collaborative consumption in contemporaneity

José Mauro Nunes & Izabelle Fernanda Silveira Vieira

Appendix 1: Development through design

Appendix 2: Basic guidelines for policy of industrial design in developing countries

About the authors

Colophon

About the Book (I)

Any country that wants to have a dignified place in the concert of nations needs design in the daily practice of their governments and businesses. It is agreed that incorporating design leads to better meeting the needs of citizens and, consequently, improves the performance of public and private sectors. Hence the importance of adopting comprehensive and consequent public policies regarding this activity.

Born in Rio de Janeiro, Gabriel Patrocínio is a respectable authority on the subject. He is one of very few doctors in public design policy in the world. These two facets combine to support his politicasdedesign.com blog, and I believe are also responsible for the idea of organizing this book with Professor José Mauro Nunes, a PhD in consumer and market psychology. They are joined by respectful personalities from Brazil, Colombia, United States, United Kingdom, China, South Africa, Turkey and India.

I had the opportunity to introduce him to another personality who inspired this work - John Heskett - whose residence in Brighton we visited together in 2012. The pleasure of that meeting is the same as I have in presenting this publication. It comes out (the first edition in Brazil, 2015) exactly 40 years after the publication by UNIDO of the document reproduced here on design policies for peripheral countries, based on a report by Gui Bonsiepe that is also part of this volume.

Gabriel amplifies the discussion brought by the original documents and provides a broad and up-to-date overview of the topic, including key voices from the generally underrated southern countries. I am sure that “Design & Development: after 40 Years” will play a very important role in the urgent task of spreading and deepening the debate on public design policies, most especially in developing countries.

Adélia Borges

Design Curator and Journalist, São Paulo, Brazil

About the Book (II)

This is an unprecedent work about design as an unvaluable factor for economic and social development. A very rich contribution of the world’s leading authors to this topic of such relevance, especially in the current context. The book Design and Development: after 40 years presents insights into the importance of design, addressing historical and current facts and exploring the theme from different points of view, from its contribution to economics to its application in public management, particularly in the development of public policies.

The copyright revenues were assigned by the authors and editors to the Brazilian Design Centre, in order to foster the debate on design policies in Brazil.

Letícia Castro

Designer, CEO of Brazilian Design Centre, Curitiba, Brazil

Note to the Portuguese edition

Gabriel Patrocínio is a designer, with a PhD from Cranfield University (UK) in Public Design Policy and a professor at UERJ (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) and ISMAT (Portimão, Portugal). José Mauro Nunes is a doctor in Psychology and also a professor at UERJ and Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).

In the context of their work at the Multidisciplinary Institute for Human Development Through Technology (IFHT-UERJ) and the former Design Policy Laboratory (DPLab.Rio), organized this book bringing together some of the leading authors in the field to discuss design as a driver of development. Contributions from the USA and Europe (United Kingdom) were joined by others from Africa, India, China, Turkey, Brazil and Colombia, establishing an unprecedented South / South dialogue on the subject. Two previously unpublished early seventies’ documents from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) appear for the first time in this work, rescuing an important piece of the history of design policies in the world, especially in peripheral countries. The book also features interviews with Mugendi K. M’Rithaa, President from 2015 to 2017 of the World Design Organization (formerly ICSID) - an institution that has been leading this discussion since the 1960s - and with Gui Bonsiepe, author of the first of the UNIDO documents reprinted. The vision of design academics is complemented by economists and consumer specialists, bringing new perspectives to the issues analyzed. In short, this is a reference work that also intends to serve as an initial platform for broadening the dialogue on design policies in the context of Latin America, the BRICS and the rest of the world.

Note to the first English edition:

The subject of Design Policies is slowly growing to be broadly discussed, although most of the time from within a design practitioners’ and design enthusiasts’ bubble. Public administration is gradually embracing design from another perspective - using Design Thinking to develop programmes and services. Lawmakers and government executives are still distant, frequently without a real knowledge of design and its potential. Governments (and designers as well) seem to be contented by design promotion actions or programmes, which are frequently wrongly accepted as a design policy. From this prospect, this book intends to be a contribution to the debate of Design Policies nourished by past experiences and reflections, but also from current practices - as in Europe and China, for example.

The book was originally meant in hindsight of a document produced in the seventies by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, UNIDO, within the context of a partnership with the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design, ICSID. This partnership resulted in a document discussing design as a driver of economic growth, prepared by Gui Bonsiepe in 1973, and then summarized by the UNIDO Secretariat in 1975 as the Basic guidelines for policy of industrial design in developing countries. Both documents were made available for this book by UNIDO, and are reproduced here as appendices. Although originally aimed at developing countries, after these four decades of unsettling growth of wicked problems, this theme deserves to be reviewed and discussed thoroughly. Design might play a very significant role when approaching contemporary problems such as rearranging urban spaces, urban mobility, tourism, immigration, housing, violence, and environment among others. These - not so new - wicked problems prompts to a whole new perspective on design and public design policies that goes beyond the original context here. The perspective of the “Third World” economy (as it was known at the time) might offer insights to understand and perhaps solve problems of any size economy - especially if we consider the aspects of local or regional problems. It is time to exercise empathy towards someone else’s problems and to reflect under different scales and measures, and design seem to be the perfect instrument for it.

Mugendi M’Rithaa, former President of ICSID (currently the WDO, World Design Organization) saluted the book as “the most important contribution on this field in the last ten years” (cited in the final remarks of his interview in the chapter Design in Africa: I participate, therefore I am). In Brazil the book was awarded twice - initially at the Objeto:Brasil International Design Award in May 2016, and then later at the same year at the MCB (Museum of the Brazilian Home) Design Awards of 2016. The jury of this later has acclaimed the book as “a theoretical and academic milestone, with potential to change the current practice and understanding of Design.” After the successful launch in Portugal with conferences in three design schools in 2016, the book was selected in 2017 to the exhibition Brasil: Hoje at MUDE, Lisbon’s Museum of Fashion and Design. The curator, Frederico Duarte, highlighted in the catalogue: “The first and indispensable book on design and development in the Portuguese language.” In 2018 the book was selected in Spain to be part of BID, the Ibero-American Design Biennial, in Madrid. In the same year was published an e-book edition in Portuguese to make it more accessible, at the same time that this first English edition started being prepared.

Gabriel Patrocínio & José Mauro Nunes, Lisbon, September 2019

Translator note:

This book was originally published in Brazilian Portuguese, in 2015, with the title “Design & Desenvolvimento: 40 anos depois” (Design & Development: 40 years later). The title was meant to evoke a recognition to the fortieth anniversary of the UNIDO document reproduced in Appendix 2, so the book was planned as a retrospect of the last four decades and how did Design Policies evolve since then. Now that we managed to release this English version, after four years from the first edition, we needed a more suitable title, which came to be Design & Development: leveraging social and economic growth through design policies.

The translation was mostly done during a six-month sabbatical period from UERJ, spent as a visiting researcher at IADE/UE, Lisbon, and at the LabVisual at FAU/USP, São Paulo, in 2018. I would like to thank Emilia Duarte (IADE/UE) and Priscila Farias (FAU/USP) for their warm welcome in their respective institutions.

Gabriel Patrocínio, Lisbon, September 2019

Foreword: UNIDO and industrial design

Gustavo Aishemberg

[ UNIDO Representative in Brazil ]

Established in 1966 as an autonomous body of the United Nations, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) was given the task of promoting and accelerating the industrialization of developing countries. When, in the early 70’s, UNIDO joined forces with the International Council of Industrial Design Societies (ICSID), it was with the understanding that industrial design was an essential tool for its mission. What better way to promote and accelerate industrialization than to have strategic partners among the best institutions and designers in the world?

The earliest consequence of the partnership was the establishment, in 1973, of a special commission that gave rise to the two documents reproduced in this volume. The first one originates from ICSID, answering the demand of the joint commission by delivering a report prepared by Professor Gui Bonsiepe, which seeked to establish definitions and propositions for the adoption of industrial policies in developing countries that contemplate industrial design as a fundamental tool. Later, in 1975 – exactly 40 years ago – with the conclusion of the special commission’s task, the UNIDO Secretariat published a document titled Basic guidelines for policy of industrial design in developing countries, which presented in brief the proposals from a working group that brought together experts from different backgrounds and institutions. The document was not intended to be prescriptive of a single standard, but rather to present general recommendations that could then be adopted or adapted, respecting the particularities of local cultures and parameters such as degree of industrialization, local economy, and several other factors.

A new Memorandum of Understanding was signed by UNIDO and ICSID in 1977, extending the goals set earlier and leading to the Ahmedabad Conference in January 1979 at the National Design Institute of India, brought forth yet another key document for the industrial policies of developing countries: Major Recommendations for the Promotion of Industrial Design for Development, also known as the Ahmedabad Declaration on Industrial Design for Development.

Hence, there is a history of partnerships that places UNIDO in the leading role of design policy actions for developing countries, which began about four decades ago. On the present occasion, UNIDO once again contributes to the debate by bringing those two documents to the public – documents which have inexplicably remained on the sidelines of this debate for many years and are now available to design and industrial, innovation and development policies researchers.

We believe that this knowledge and the voices expressed in this regard in this book are in line with UNIDO’s mandate to promote sustainable and inclusive development and in line with the sustainable development objectives – especially with the 9th objective, which highlights the need for industrial development as a premise for humankind to reduce poverty and provide a sustainable world for future generations. In this sense, it is with great satisfaction that we offer the contribution of UNIDO to the initiative, and we recommend its reading and study.

Foreword: The role of design in the knowledge era

Edna dos Santos-Duisenberg

[ Advisor, United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR); International Consultant in Creative Economics and Development ]

In the current phase of transition from an industrial era to the era of knowledge and creativity, design has become increasingly relevant as a means to support the improvement of social welfare and urban development. Design has been used to promote quality of life and to facilitate interactions between the economic, technological, social, cultural and environmental aspects of contemporary society. Consequently, innovative design has become a catalyst to the concoction of development strategies that are better suited to the reality of the 21st century and better satisfy its needs. Design thinking has been employed in the process of implementing transversal public policies mainly when rethinking the urban planning of cities with the intention of making them humanly habitable both for their present population and for future generations.

Recently, in both more advanced and developing countries, governments have gradually started using design as a tool to stimulate structural change and to revise models of economic growth in order to make them more inclusive and sustainable in the long run. In launching the Creative Economy Reports (UNCTAD-UNDP, 2008 and 2010) and including design in the classification of creative industries, the UN made an effective contribution that helped raise awareness in the international community, especially among politicians and academics, to the importance of concerted and multi-disciplinary policies to revitalize development and promote sustainability. Globalization, connectivity and the democratization of access to information have made civil society more active, critical and participative, thus being able to engage in the design of creative solutions to the problems of daily life. In this context, design greatly impacts not only the configuration of urban spaces, but also the dynamics of local economies and the lives of citizens – in addition to leveraging business, generating jobs and promoting inclusion and innovation.

It should be noted that design not only deals with the shapes and appearance of products but also represents functional and aesthetic creations expressed in various ways as creative goods or services. The creation of a jewel, the architecture of a building, the design of an industrial good such as an automobile or the conception of an interior decoration object either single or large scale produced, are all design products that incorporate creative content, economic value and cultural and market objective. Design is the industry that most contributes to expanding world trade in the creative industries, accounting for more than 65% of total exports of creative goods and 60% of creative services. According to UNCTAD data, about $ 414 billion circulated annually through the world market resulting from the marketing of the various facets of design products.

Design is a complex sector because of its vast scope, the subjectivity of its definitions and its distinct characteristics. Therefore, the reflection, research and questions expressed in this book on the dialectics of design for development are extremely timely and give a significant contribution to the better understanding of this problem. The book analyses the evolution and polarity of views over four decades, identifying asymmetries in the conceptualization of design, and pointing out some mechanisms used in government policies, but wisely focuses on complementarities identifying possible convergences. It is important to recognize the legacy left by researchers and institutions such as the United Nations, mainly through studies and publications of UNIDO, UNCTAD and ECLAC (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), as well as the International Council of Industrial Design Societies (ICSID) to advance the debate and the omnipresence of design in the articulation of development policies.

Why discuss design policies? - An introduction

Gabriel Patrocínio

The discourse of design as a tool for development (be it economic, social, or an ideal of convergence of both) is established in the context of the debate on national design policies. This debate, although widening in the last decade, is still very restricted in the academic environment, with few publications, researches and studies on the subject.

On the other hand, for decades it has been said that design needs to come closer to public and government bodies, integrating the tools they employ in dealing with the increasingly complex problems of management and public policies. Authors such as Gui Bonsiepe, John Heskett, Victor Margolin, Alpay Er, and Brigitte Borja de Mozota among others, call attention to the theme, which first appeared in the academy in the studies of design history, and afterwards also in the field of design management. More recently, the growing interest in the subject has majorly derived from the understanding of design in the context of Creative Economy, a sector of the economy that has been outgrowing others - including the financial sector. Converging interests brought together international bodies such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the World Economic Forum and the European Commission, with the support of professional institutions as the European Bureau of Design Associations (BEDA), and the International Council of Industrial Design Societies (ICSID – recently renamed World Design Organization, WDO). The occurrence of new studies, the number of documents commissioned by government and international bodies, the organization of subject-related conferences, have all been steadily progressing every year. Today’s discussions cover not only design policies but also the use of design for policies - recognizing the importance of design tools for building understanding and greater clarity in the formulation of public policies. To mention just one document that has gained prominence in recent years, “Design for growth and prosperity” was edited by the European Commission in 2012 as a report containing recommendations from the European Design Leadership Board. In the document, several recommendations to the member countries interconnect innovation, educational, research, business and public sector systems with numerous guidelines to promote the development of local economy through design.

In this context, this book emerges from the rescue of a document published in 1975 by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which deals with national design policies as a mechanism to support the industrial policies of developing countries. Entitled “Basic Guidelines for Industrial Design Policies in Developing Countries”, and produced by the UNIDO Secretariat, it is the central outcome of the work of an ICSID and UNIDO joint committee. The final document was preceded by a report produced by Gui Bonsiepe in 1973, representing ICSID – “Development by Design”. Both documents – so far, barely known possibly for being stamped ‘Restricted’ – have been published for the first time in this book, with UNIDO’s permission. Despite their ample scope, these documents synthesize the idea without prescribing a unique formula for implementing design policies. Therefore, even today they keep their value of important references, and we are sure that their dissemination will contribute to build and restructure design programs around the world.

The book celebrates the four decades that spanned since the edition of the UNIDO documents and tries to understand how this idea – of design as a development tool – has been addressed over the course of these (more than) forty years in several countries. Contributing authors come from countries such as Brazil, India, China and Turkey, and there are overviews of the African Continent and Latin America, plus a panorama on Europe today. Add to these the historical perspective brought by Victor Margolin and the comments of Gui Bonsiepe, interviewed specially for this book. Views on public policies, industrial development, strategies, convergent and divergent trajectories, design as a tool for competitiveness and social development, and also from the viewpoint of consumer society – offering thus a broad panorama that is not intended to be complete, but rather to start (or restart) a discussion. It should also hopefully serve as a stimulus for future debate and certainly for other publications extending and deepening the subject.

1. Design for development: mapping the context

Victor Margolin

[ An earlier version of this article was published in Design Studies 28 no. 2, March 2007 ]

1.

Design for development is not a new concept. Although it can scarcely be found in the literature on development theory, since the 1960s it has been sporadically introduced to the development process although it is yet to earn itself a permanent place. The idea of development has a relatively short history. The tripartite structure of First World, Second World, and Third World, which dominated development thought after World War II, was based on a Cold War ideology that identified capitalism as the favored economic system. The First World consisted of the Western industrialized capitalist nations; the Second World consisted of the centralized command economies in the Communist countries, while the Third World was comprised mainly of new nations that had previously been colonies of First World nations and had achieved independence often through wars and revolutions of liberation. The ideological underpinnings of this asymmetric structure politicized the three groups and tainted the transfer of aid and technical assistance with propagandistic overtones.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact Communist regimes in 1989, the three-world structure lost its ideological meaning as did the term “Third World” which sadly came to codify for many a condition of poverty and hopelessness that did not sufficiently recognize the potential of these countries for development. Meanwhile, some nations previously grouped in the Third World category experienced sufficiently high levels of economic growth that advanced them to the status of newly industrialized countries.

Despite these political and economic changes in the status among nations, development remained focused primarily on economic advancement but, given the ideological context of development planning in the postwar years, it was development according to the models of the most industrialized countries. As part of this process the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank provided huge loans to less developed countries for major infrastructure projects such as dams, highways, and large industrial enterprises.1 To complement these projects, international and national bilateral aid agencies introduced social projects related to agriculture, health, and occasionally small-scale manufacturing.

A change in the development paradigm took place beginning in the 1980s when a series of international commissions both within and outside of the United Nations expanded the definition of development to include its ability to create human well being and not just an economic infrastructure. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) adopted the idea of human development, which considered issues of culture, social equality, health, nutrition, and education among others. In 1987, the UN sponsored a World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission. Headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Prime Minister of Norway, the Commission introduced a new term “sustainable development” to the development lexicon in its report Our Common Future. The Commission’s concern with the “needs of the world’s poor to which overriding priority should be given;” shifted the fundamental argument for development from the construction of large-scale industrial projects to ameliorating the social and economic condition of the world’s least fortunate citizens. It also gave strong emphasis to the state of the environment, supporting “the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”2 The emphasis on the social and cultural factors of development was further amplified in 1995 when the World Commission on Culture and Development, a group that had been established by UNESCO, introduced its own report, Our Creative Diversity. The Commission asserted that “The ultimate aim of development is the universal physical, mental and social well being of every human being.”3

The Commission was concerned with the preservation of local cultures as well as enforcing the rights of children, young people, and women. Among the topics the Commissioners discussed were cultural heritage, the maintenance of pluralistic cultures, and a global ethics.

As a result of these United Nations commissions and others, development by the mid 1990s had come to mean nothing less than the total economic, social, physical, cultural, and environmental well-being of a given population ranging from the level of a village to a region, a nation, or even the entire globe. And yet, despite the expansive definitions of development that the United Nations commissions have espoused, their high ideals are yet to form the core of the development process.

Instead, development is driven more aggressively by the Washington Consensus, a set of policies originally devised in 1989 to promote economic growth in Latin America, which has become the basis for neoliberal economic ideas that have promoted free trade policies, the privatization of government enterprises, and greater opportunities for multinational corporations in the economies of developing countries. One economist who has opposed the Washington Consensus is Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist at the World Bank and now a Professor of Economics at Columbia University. In a 2001 paper, Stiglitz argued that “Washington consensus policies that were foisted on developing countries did little to increase economic growth, and may have contributed significantly to economic instability.”4 Instead, Stiglitz proposed an “alternative paradigm” which, he said, “must center around (i) identifying and explaining key characteristics of developing countries and exploring the macro-economic implications e.g. for growth and stability:” and “(ii) describing the process of change, how institutions, including social and political institutions, and economic structures are altered in the process of development.”5

Concurrent with the neoliberal economic policies that continue to dominate development economics, the United Nations established the Millennium Development Goals, following a meeting of 147 heads of state held in New York in September 2000. The eight MDGs, which have served as a rallying point for governments and NGOs throughout the world, originally committed the nations of the world to relieving global poverty by 1915. As of early 2015, only three of the goals were achieved and much work remained to be done on the others.6 The humanitarian aims of the MDGs are in direct competition with the neoliberal policies that have caused such harmful effects on economies throughout the world, given that development is not a coordinated effort and continues to be driven by private interests as well as public policy.

The global economy is asymmetrical and the problem of fair trade, an issue that is discussed independently of the MDGs, remains central to the achievement of worldwide development. The spread of multinational corporations such as Wal-Mart from the developed to the less developed world has brought both benefits and considerable problems to the less developed countries, where these companies establish markets even as they introduce new abundant and frequently inexpensive goods to the local populations. Gargantuan companies like Wal-Mart extract considerable local capital from their host countries in exchange for providing goods and services that the host country might have provided itself. Such has been one of the sad consequences of the NAFTA agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico and is likely to be replicated in the CAFTA trading zone that joined the United States and the Central American countries as well as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership that President Obama has been promoting.

The point to be made by juxtaposing the politics of international trade with the ambitious social agenda of the Millennium Development Goals is that the development process is filled with contradictions at the macro level even as small-scale and medium-scale projects might be very successful. These contradictions contribute to the difficulty of drafting workable national development plans that are based on the intention to optimize local conditions and resources even if such plans run counter to the neoliberal agenda.

What is clear, however, is that the development process is now far more complex than it was following World War II when the demarcation of First, Second, and Third World nations determined the dynamics of international economic growth and social betterment. There are currently many more actors in the process, ranging from the thousands of NGOS to the United Nations agencies, national governments, universities, multinational corporations, and international networks of activists.

For many people and organizations involved in development, it now means the alleviation of poverty rather than national economic planning. While the most extreme situations of poverty, hunger, and homelessness remain in the least developed countries, the gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to widen in nations such as the United Sates that are still considered to belong to the First World. As well, environmental sustainability, which was not on the development agenda in the immediate postwar years, now affects everyone, no matter how privileged they are. Therefore, development presently takes on a much broader meaning than it ever had in the past. This is not to shift attention from the least developed parts of the world where the demand for assistance is greatest, but it does imply that human needs exist everywhere.

2.

Where, then, does design fit into this broad picture of development? To answer this question, I want to begin with the Amhedabad Declaration on Industrial Design and Development, which resulted from a meeting in January 1979 to discuss the promotion of industrial design in developing countries. Starting with this document will provide a very different trajectory of the design for development movement than the one that most often begins with Victor Papanek’s Design for the Real World and E.F. Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful. The Ahmedabad conference, which was hosted by India’s National Institute of Design, resulted from a memorandum that was signed in April 1977 between the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID).

It is significant that ICSID’s original partner inside the United Nations system was the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) rather than the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) because it reinforces the fact that the UN originally understood design to be part of the process of industrial development rather than a partner in the humanitarian effort to alleviate poverty. Of course the two goals are connected but at a certain point, particularly after Papanek published the English language edition of Design for the Real World in 1972, design for development became associated primarily with low technology, labor-intensive projects that addressed community survival needs more than they contributed to national development strategies. This has been evident in a spate of books, exhibition catalogues, and conference proceedings that ally design with low-technology interventions.7

Papanek, in fact, had set up a binary opposition in Design for the Real World between the irresponsible and wasteful products for which designers in the First World were responsible and the more meaningful products that he and his students designed for Third World use. The product that he sometimes cited as an example of design for a Third World country was a tin can radio, which was powered by candle wax.8 He referred to it as a “transitional device,” claiming that it led unsophisticated people to eventually adopt Panasonic, Phillips, and other industrially produced radios.

Papanek’s antagonism to industrial design as it was practiced in the developed countries was reinforced by the widespread counterculture movement of the early 1970s that challenged the social and economic values of Western capitalist societies. Besides embracing Papanek’s critique of industrial design in the West, students and others also accepted E.F. Schumacher’s skepticism towards modernization. Its not surprising that the paperback cover of Schumacher’s book Small is Beautiful featured a picture of Mahatma Gandhi, who favored traditional crafts as a symbol of Indian nationalism, rather than Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister who espoused and implemented industrial policies from the West.

One might provocatively make a comparison between the emphasis of Schumacher and Papanek on small-scale low-tech projects and the colonial model of development that the British pioneered in India in the 19th century although the motivations are quite different. Schumacher and Papanek put a high value on local empowerment as a rejection of Western hegemony. The British Colonial Office supported the development of craft education in Indian art schools, putting a strong emphasis on the expression of Indian identity through a cultivation of the decorative arts, while the British manufacturers simultaneously targeted India as a market for their own machine-made textiles, which they sold there with as little competition as possible from Indian producers.9

A year after Design for the Real World was published, and perhaps because of it, the international Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID formed a working group to discuss ways that designers could help to alleviate problems of the Third World. Known as Working Group 4: Developing Countries, it was led by Paul Hogan of the Irish Export Board and included among its members Papanek, Knut Iran from Philips, Jorg Glasenapp, Goroslav Kepper, and Amrik Kalsi, a Kenyan who was the only member from a developing country. According to Papanek, the group met every few months for almost three years. In his brief description of the group’s work, he notes that the group’s sensitivity to cultural needs was in opposition to the “high-tech bias of design expansionism felt to be desirable by some in ICSID.”10 One of the group’s proposals was for an “international design school for the southern half of the globe.”11 A principal objective of the school, as he noted in a 1983 article, was to address the realities of peripheral countries, which were best characterized by “labour-intensive, small-scale economics...”12

Papanek’s characterization of peripheral country realities could not have been more different from the objectives of the Ahmedabad Declaration in 1979. The political events that led up to the agreement between ICSID and UNIDO, actually begin with the formation of the Group of 77 in June 1964. This was a coalition of seventy-seven developing countries who signed a joint declaration to clarify and promote their collective economic interests and increase their joint negotiating capacity on major economic issues within the United Nations system.

The formation of the group led to a succession of declarations among which was the Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation of 1975, which was adopted by the Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) that same year. The document was explicit in its emphasis on the role of industry “as a dynamic instrument of growth essential to the rapid economic and social development of the developing countries, in particular of the least developed countries.”13 The declaration was also associated with the proposal for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) that was first proposed at the Summit Conference of Non-Aligned Nations, which was held in Algiers in 1973. Shortly thereafter the United Nations General Assembly adopted a highly charged Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of All States, which affirmed that each state had full sovereignty over its wealth and natural resources, including the right to appropriate foreign enterprises with adequate compensation if necessary. In the long run, the call for a New International Economic Order did not transform the international economic system although it did become a rallying call for the coalition of developing countries that supported it.

It was therefore in the spirit of an aggressive call by the developing countries to restructure the world economy that the Amhedabad conference was held and the Ahmedabad Declaration on Industrial Design for Development was produced.14 The Declaration stated explicitly that it was aligned with the Lima Declaration and Plan of Action, which emphasized the central role of industry in development. It rightly recognized that design could make a valuable contribution to a nation’s economic development and that “design methodology is inadequately known and insufficiently used as an economic resource.”15 While the declaration acknowledged that design in developing countries had to utilize “indigenous skills, materials and traditions,” just as Papanek and ICSID’s Working Group 4 proposed, it also stated that design had to absorb “the extraordinary power that science and technology can make available to it.”16

The document’s drafters encouraged developing countries to establish design institutions and centers, which should “develop close and sustained links with industrial activity in government and in the private sector, at every level including heavy industries, medium-scale industries, small-scale, rural and craft industries, as well as with educational and research institutions, and with people who are the ultimate users of design.”17

The commitment to science and technology and the development of close links with industry was a significant addition to Papanek’s and Schumacher’s community-oriented ideas about development, while it also shifted ICSID’s approach to developing countries from Working Group 4’s attempt at low-tech solutions to an organizational statement of support for UNIDO’s goals of industrial production.

In an article of 1986, Design in Developing Countries 1950 – 1985: A Summing Up, Papanek wrote the history somewhat differently. He recognized that the Ahmedabad declaration was an important pointer to the future that concluded the decade of the 1970s but he excised the document’s industrial emphasis, declared that “trying to rush into a high-tech streamlined twenty-first century of greater centralization is obviously a cul-de-sac.”18 Papanek concluded his article with a polemical argument that challenged the need for international experts and claimed that cooperation between developing countries was “an alternative and natural path to self-help.”19

Papanek also praised the work that German designer Gui Bonsiepe did in Chile as a member of INTEC, a team of industrial designers that Salvador Allende, Chile’s Socialist president, established to create new products such as agricultural equipment to meet the country’s needs. Bonsiepe, in fact, was a strong critic of Design for the Real World, entitling his seminal review of the book in the Argentine magazine Summa, “Pirouettes of Neo-Colonialism.”20 Papanek, in turn characterized Bonsiepe as having a “clearly defined politically factionalist viewpoint.”21

Of all the theorists writing about design for development since the Ahmedabad Declaration, Bonsiepe is one of the few who has honored the spirit of that document as well as the Lima Declaration and Plan of Action. In 1991 he published a chapter on design in developing countries in the three-volume History of Industrial Design, brought out by Electa in Milan. Bonsiepe aligned design clearly with industry, claiming that “a well-grounded and comprehensive history of industrial design on the periphery of modern civilization cannot be written until historians have built up a picture of industrial development with all its ramifications into the domains of business, commerce, science, technology, and, above all, the everyday life of society.”22

In his writings about design in developing countries in the early 1990s, Bonsiepe worked with a center/periphery model that foregrounded a disparate relationship of power and privilege between the developed and developing countries and demonstrated that design had an important role to play in the industrial development of what he considered to be peripheral nations. To organize historical data, Bonsiepe created a matrix that crossed six domains of design – management, practice, policy, education, research, and discourse – with five stages of development. In the first stage of practice he located design at all, a situation that then was to evolve from self-taught artists working outside industry (a place where Papanek felt comfortable) to a search for services that would characterize industrial design and finally to designers working in industrial enterprises. Among the other activities that Bonsiepe envisioned in the fifth stage of development were multidisciplinary development teams; international symposia, congresses, and competitions; demanding educational courses in well-equipped schools, design as an object of scientific study, and the publication of books that deal with design practice as well as its history and theory. In effect, Bonsiepe’s final stage looked exactly like the design activity in a country of the developed world. The implication of his matrix is that design and its milieu can and should mature just as a nation’s economy, administration, and provision of services develop.23

Bonsiepe’s claim for design’s role in a nation’s planning and development process follows fairly closely the recommendations of the Ahmedabad Declaration. However, as in the Declaration, which urges designers to work with a range or organizations from heavy industries to small-scale craft cooperatives, Bonsiepe has never in his practice as a consultant or director of a design organization or in his writings rejected small-scale industries in favor of a linear move towards industrial production.

The matrix that Bonsiepe proposed for the advancement of design thinking and design in developing countries has been made more complicated in recent years by the global practices of multinational companies that design their products in the United States or Japan and then manufacture them in low-wage countries like China, Thailand, Romania, or Bangladesh. Manufacturing facilities have been separated from the design process, giving the countries where global products are manufactured experience with production but not with design.

In some cases, this has changed as countries that began by organizing low-wage production for foreign companies, understood that if they were to develop their local industries, they would need their own designers. Japan was perhaps the first to understand this and began in the Meiji era to produce its own product designers, well before the country started to manufacture cheap products under the American occupation after World War II.24 During the 1950s, the Japanese learned to manufacture their own electronic products, adopting American technologies such as the transistor before American companies did and using American experts likes Edward Deming to create just in time manufacturing and other production innovations. By the 1960s, the Japanese had just about defeated the American television industry with their superior electronic products and went on to market many original electronic devices such as the Walkman.25 They also began to produce automobiles that were of higher quality than most of their American counterparts and continue to do so.

As the Japanese were becoming more successful in the design and marketing of global products, South Korea began to follow suit and by 1967 had produced it’s own automobiles, the Hyundai and the Kia. Now India is growing rapidly in the field of software design and similar to the Japanese with hard goods, is beginning to create its own software designs in addition to staffing research labs for Microsoft and manning call centers for other foreign companies. China, once the new Workshop of the World, is also designing its own global products. As these countries have developed successful ways of incorporating industrial designers into their manufacturing sector, they have also taken a stronger role in ICSID but as countries in a mature stage of industrial development.

3.

If we compare the way Gui Bonsiepe characterized design in the developing world in his 1991 article with that of Papanek, it is evident that Bonsiepe’s five stage model offers far more opportunities for design intervention in different sectors of the economy, recognizing as did the Ahmedabad Declaration, that design can and should play multiple roles in the development process. Bonsiepe presented a comprehensive model of that process which was much wider than the frequent emphasis on basic needs, although he recognized the importance of these as well. Granted that Bonsiepe derived his design examples from what he called peripheral countries, primarily Brazil and India which have since developed strong manufacturing sectors, his matrix can nonetheless be applied to any developing country, even one that is mired in the most basic conditions of poverty.

Bonsiepe does not claim in his chapter that every country has the potential to rapidly alter its current role in the global economy but he does suggest that this is possible. In other writings, he has put a strong emphasis on the difference between those countries that have historically exported raw materials and imported finished goods, a situation that still characterizes large parts of the developing world, and those that produce finished goods for their own consumption and for foreign export. Clearly, the latter are the ones that maintain the asymmetric advantage and Bonsiepe has consistently urged developing countries to include design in their manufacturing sectors.

By contrast, Papanek’s approach, which many designers envision when they consider design for development, corresponds most closely to a particular aspect of social planning known as community development. It is currently carried out largely by the Third Sector, which is made up mainly of local and international organizations dedicated to social betterment, including the alleviation of poverty. This sector is distinguished from the First Sector, comprised of companies operating in the market, and the Second Sector, which consists mainly of government agencies. Third Sector organizations get funding from the two other sectors as well as from additional sources such as foundations and public contributions. What distinguished the Third Sector from the First and Second is that its projects generally play a more modest role in national development plans than the strengthening of large scale manufacturing enterprises. Frequently designers from developed countries work with small enterprises or medium enterprises (SMEs) as does the organization Dutch Design in Development, which has collaborated with businesses, and cooperatives in a number of countries.26 Similar work has been conducted by Fernando Schultz at the Autonomous University of Mexico in Azcapotzalco, outside Mexico City, which has worked with regional craftsmen in different parts of Mexico to produce modernized craft objects for the export market.

Opportunities for design intervention in the development process are generally determined by the existing structure of development assistance. Before considering ways that design might play a more prominent role in that process, let us consider that structure. Development assistance takes many forms: outright grants and donations of money, goods, and services; loans; the advice of experts, and training of local actors both at home and abroad. Design as a service is a form of human social intervention by local designers who have gained their expertise through study, apprenticeship, or local training or by outside experts who help to produce designs or who train local designers. Interventions by outside experts range from the previously mentioned consultations with SMEs to training for designers in large companies. Consider in the latter case the impact that American car designers made after World War II when they taught their Japanese counterparts how to design automobiles for mass production.

Within the family of United Nations organizations, design has most often been connected with the United Nations Development Programme and hardly with UNIDO, despite that organization’s co-sponsorship of the Ahmedabad conference in 1979. There is little or no evidence of other specialized agencies - WHO, the World Health Organization; FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO or UN Habitat giving design a place of prominence within their aid programs.

National development agencies such as USAID, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), and Britain’s Department for International Development also make little use of design as an integral part of their country development plans. Similarly the thousands of non-governmental organizations lack an understanding of what designers do nor can they envision what design can contribute to their programs and concerns.

Among the multinational corporations that participate in the development process by building manufacturing facilities in less developed countries, there is little interest in cultivating local design professions, given that design can be done anywhere and the corporations have no incentive to work with designers who may lack the sophistication and technical know-how of design professionals in developed countries.

There are several reasons for this lack of design involvement. First, is that design is little understood among the myriad organizations involved in the development process, particularly in the less advanced stages. Second, and more important is that if design begins to contribute to the success of large national enterprises, it may upset even further the asymmetric trade advantages of the developed countries. The examples of Japan and South Korea have become models for other countries. Consequently aid organizations should help to strengthen larger enterprises as well as the SMEs and the small-scale cooperatives. It is also true that the impact of some multinational corporations is so great in the countries where they operate that it would be extremely difficult to compete with them without some changes in trade legislation. Lastly, design is barely considered in the development theories on which governments and outside funding agencies base their policies.

4.

What then can be done? First, development theory has to better integrate multiple factors of trade, technology transfer, and cultural expansion that affect the conditions for development. While debt relief and the millions of dollars that the developed nations and international agencies dedicate by to the eradication of poverty are essential, what is most needed is the strengthening of developing nations’ national economies to help them better compete in global markets. This means more openness to their concerns within the World Trade Organization in order to avoid the 2003 debacle at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun, where a group of developing nations walked out of the talks.

What is needed is a more dynamic model of development that recognizes a continuum of activity ranging from the alleviation of poverty to the amelioration of trade. Within such a model, a given situation that calls for design can be analyzed according to a temporal spatial matrix. On the one hand, such a matrix can characterize the situation in relation to other factors that enable a more holistic approach to it. On the other, it can be located on a temporal trajectory that suggests potential expansion or transformation in the future.

To influence development theories, advocates of design for development must participate in the appropriate fora where these theories are discussed, notably the conferences of the various professional associations including those that deal with trade issues. As change agents, there is a need for designers with advanced degrees in international development including economics and trade, who can introduce design thinking into development theory and become advocates for others to do so.27

Design for development needs to broaden its brief from an emphasis on poverty alleviation and consultation with SMEs to the strategic creation of products for the global market and the relation of design to medium – and large-scale planning. The world music industry offers an excellent example of how musicians from developed countries have launched highly successful international careers and have become successful international performers. One good example related to design is fashion where traditional craftsmanship can be easily combined with a strong value-added design component to produce high-quality goods for sale abroad. Too often such enterprises are initiated by individuals from developed countries who have an understanding of international marketing rather than by the local people who contribute most of the work to the enterprise. In the United States Fubu (For Us By Us), started in 1992 by five African-American men in Queens, New York, with limited funds, parlayed urban street styles into a multimillion dollar business that for a number of years included not only mens’, women’s, and children’s fashions but also home accessories such as bedding. Operating in countries throughout the world, Fubu’s expansion was based on shrewd marketing principles that positioned the company to raise needed capital as it grew.28

5.

My call in this paper is to rethink the scope of design for development so that it can address the needs of developing countries in the most meaningful ways. The Ahmedabad Declaration called for interventions that ranged from consulting on small-scale enterprises to the most sophisticated transfers of science and technology. In subsequent years neither ICSID nor UNIDO followed through on this vision and a far more restricted view of design for development, buttressed principally by Victor Papanek came to dominate the design and development discourse.29 It is time to revisit the Ahmedabad Declaration along with the more comprehensive multi-stage model of Gui Bonsiepe to address more comprehensively the full range of complex factors that determine the possibilities for development within the evolving global economy.

References

BALARAM, S. (2009) Design in India: the importance of the Ahmedabad Declaration, Design Issues Autumn 2009, v. 25, n. 4, p. 54-79.

BONSIEPE, G. (1991) Developing countries: awareness of design and the peripheral condition. In: PIROVANO, C. (Ed.) History of design: 1919-1990The dominion of design. Milan: Electa.

PAPANEK, V. (1983) For the southern half of the globe. Design studies, v. 4, n. 1, jan. 1983.

______. (1986) Design in developing countries 1950-1985: a summing-up. Art Libraries Journal, v. 11, n. 2, 1986.

STIGLITZ, J. E. (undated) An agenda for the new development economics. [Rascunho preparado para a reunião da UNRISD, The need to rethink development economics,set. 2001.] Available at: <http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/%28httpPublications%29/11660BB5D7A4BB11C1256BC9004B75FE?OpenDocument>. Acessed: 25 Aug. 2015.

UNIDO (1975) Lima declaration and plan of action on industrial development and co-operation. Available at: < https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/media/images/ 1975-Lima_Declaration_and_Plan_of_Action_on_Industrial_Development_and_Co-operation_26.3.1975.pdf>. Acessed: 25 Aug. 2015.

WCCD (1995) Our creative diversity. World Commission on Culture and Development. Paris: EGOPRIM.

WCED (1987) Our common future, from one Earth to one world.World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Endnotes

1 For an account of development history, see David Stoesz, Charles Guzzetta, and Mark Lusk, International Development, Boston et al.: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.

2Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 43.

3Our Creative Diversity: Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development (Paris: EGOPRIM, 1995), 16.

4 Joseph Stiglitz, “An Agenda for the New Development Economics,” Draft paper prepared for the UNRISD meeting, The Need to Rethink Development Economics, September 2001, 3.

5 Ibid. 2

6 Following the Rio + 20 Earth Summit in 2012, a commitment was made to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to build on those development goals already in place.

7 See Tim Coward, James Fathers, and Angharad Thomas, eds. Design & Development: Seminar Proceedings. Cardiff 11-12, July 2001 (Cardiff: UWIC Press, 2002); Åse Kari Haugeto and Sarah Alice Knutslien, eds. Design Without Borders: Experiences from Incorporating industrial Design into Projects for Development and Humanitarian Aid (Oslo: Norsk Form, 2004); and Design for the Other 90% (New York: Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum Smithsonian Institution, 2007). The latter is the catalog of an exhibition held at the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum from May 4 – September 23, 2007. Exhibited projects included a bamboo treadle pump, a corrugated cardboard shelter, and a solar hearing aid.

8 Papanek’s assertion of a need for transitional objects such as the tin can radio can by challenged by the recent successful introduction of cell phones in rural Africa. See Sharon LaFraniere, “Cellphones Catapult Rural Africa to 21st Century,” The New York Times, August 25, 2005.

9 For a discussion of British colonial practices related to design and design education in 19th century India, see Victor Margolin, World History of Design v. 2 [Chapter 34: Colonies: India, Hong Kong, and Burma. 1900-1945, pp. 729-742] (London, New Dehli, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2015).

10 Victor Papanek, “Design in Developing Countries 1950-1985: A Summing-Up,” Art Libraries Journal 11 no. 2 (1986), 46.

11 Victor Papanek, “For the Southern Half of the Globe,” Design Studies 4 no. 1 (January 1983), 61.

12 Ibid. As Papanek notes, Paul Hogan, who headed Working Group 4, presented the proposal to ICSID’s 1975 congress in Moscow but it received minimal support and ICSID never acted on it.

13Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation, 1975 (Selected extracts), 1. Available at http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/lima/un

14 The Ahmedabad Declaration was republished in Design Issues with an introduction by S. Balaram. See S. Balaram, “Design in India: The Importance of the Ahmedabad Declaration,” Design Issues 25 v. 4 (Autumn 2009): 54-79.

15 Ibid. 65.

16 Ibid. 66.

17 Ibid.

18 Papanek, “Design in Developing Countries 1950-1985: A Summing-Up,” 46

19 Ibid. 47.

20 Gui Bonsiepe, “Piruetas del Neo-Colonialismo,” Summa 67 (September 1973): 69.

21 Papanek, “Design in Developing Countries 1950-1985: A Summing-Up,” 45

22 Gui Bonsiepe, “Developing Countries: Awareness of Design and the Peripheral Condition,” History of Design: 1919-1990 The Dominion of Design (Milan: Electa, 1991), 252

23 Ibid. 255

24 See Victor Margolin, World History of Design v. 1 [Chapter 15: Protoindustrialization in Diverse Regions, pp. 437-440] and World History of Design v. 2 [Chapter 36; Asia: Japan, its Colonies, and its Territories, pp. 783-800].

25 See Akio Morita with Edwin M. Reingold and Mitsuko Shimomura, Made in Japan: Akio Morita and the Sony Corporation (New York: Dutton, 1986).

26 Infomation on Dutch Design in Development can be found on the group’s website http://www.ddid.nl. The organization’s work in Niger was supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

27 See, for example, the PhD dissertation Design Attitude and Social Innovation: Empirical Studies of the Return on Design that Marianna Amatullo completed in 2015 at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case-Western Reserve University.

28 See http://www.fubu.com

29 ICSID did try to create an organization to relate design to development. Called Design for the World and promoted initially by the late Kenji Ekuan, it carried out several projects but could never build a solid funding base and consequently it ceased to operate. See Kenji Ekuan, “Design for the World,” ICSID News 3/99: 8.

2. Development patterns of industrial design in the Third World: a conceptual model for newly industrialized countries

H. Alpay Er

[ This text was originally published in the Journal of Design History, v. 10, n. 3. © 1997 The Design History Society. ]