Small is beautiful!

‘Small is Beautiful’ is the title of the famous book authored by E.F. “Fritz” Schumacher, which was at one time rated among the 100 most influential books to come out after World War II (by the Times Literary Supplement).

It was 100 years ago that Fritz Schumacher was born in Bonn, Germany, on 16 August 1911. His rise to fame came initially from a paper he did during his internment time in an isolated English farm (as he was German and classified as an alien!) in Britain during World War II, which caught the attention of the famous economist Keynes.

With time of course the two’s economic thinking showed maximum divergence. His thesis was ‘Production from Local Resources for Local Needs is the Most Rational Way of Economic Life’.

Practical Action



Practical Action in Sri Lanka, to whom Schumacher is quite dear as they owe him their birth and growth, was initially the Intermediate Technology Development Group which started in 1966. Practical Action celebrated his centenary in a style Schumacher would have approved of.

It organised specific research outputs and finally had a symposium on the theme ‘Facing Contemporary Challenges of Development in Sri Lanka: Relevance of Schumacher’s Work’. It is interesting to note how those who have some responsibility for the economy consider Schumacher and his work.

Schumacher passionately looked at self-reliance and identified the importance of valuing the future in current actions. Why ‘Small is Beautiful’ became such a hit was perhaps due to the resonance effect with sensibility and the human touch it conveyed.

He was not your orthodox economist. Far from it, he was rebel and a severe critique on Western economists. He did not rebel in a style to antagonise others perhaps and displayed that human touch in all his arguments. His book came out in a year of global importance – in 1973 when the world reeled with the OPEC cartel and the price hikes. He had foreseen the issue.

Ideas of real importance



Schumacher had many ideas of real importance to today’s economies, especially like Sri Lanka. It is no secret that we are looking at one set of numbers and these are not to do with sustainability.

One significant aspect he has believed and expressed is that you just cannot bring in technology from another country and expect to have the piece of the kit alone. His contention had been when you bring in a piece of the kit, there is also an ideological association that piece of equipment represents.

Just for a light-hearted comparison, just take your mind to Colombo roads in the past few weeks. School big matches and walks, etc. appear to showcase the big limousines, giving them pride of place. It was quite instructive to view the almost religious fervour the vehicle is having on school children and the bystanders.

Now for them this appears to be an ultimate prize to acquire. To state as per Schumacher: “Technology is not ideologically neutral. The machines that we use in everyday life shape the way that we see the world and the sorts of people we become.”

For them the small is not so beautiful or useful. Schumacher may cringe on viewing a scene like this happening in a developing country, which is facing an energy crisis. As per students they are not seen the impact on their future and I am not sure what the teachers taught.

They may see that the superior growth and more profits are only what one needs to understand, expecting all the rest to be taken care of by the presence of currency in one’s pocket or account. Sadly, the world is moving into a complex web of events and by no means is it clear that the presence of mere cash will be able to take care of the emerging issues.

Appropriate technology



He was passionate about appropriate technology. We today have three technology concepts perhaps as a result – technologies, intermediate technologies and appropriate technologies. The debate on this has gone on from that initial spark and I am not quite sure whether we have resolved the debate, especially with respect to appropriate technologies.

He was considering technology to lift people out of poverty as the major consideration. It is not quite clear whether he was prejudiced with respect to the ability to foster innovations in a society to overcome poverty, hence his deposition that one cannot have the technologies as in London, Parris or Pittsburgh.

Of course, when we see the economic planners in developing economies not factoring in one’s own innovative capacities to propel the economies but relying on classical market forces, monetary mechanisms and with subsidies to lend a hand to the poor and differently-abled, Schmacher may be excused for not thinking in this area.

Of course in Bonn, London and Oxford where he finally resided, innovation is bread and butter. Well, the amount of significant change brought about by sticking to this type of knitting appears to be almost negligible in developing economies and it is always a struggle to make ends meet.

Perhaps he saw systems incapable of comprehending innovation and growth compared to his own background. Thus he was out to alleviate the poverty facing many in developing countries. He was not out to inspire, innovate and deliver but to advocate on right ways, selection and implementation and seeking growth with a human touch and with intermediate technologies.

Indian example



It was Schumacher who was responsible for getting late Indian Premier Shrimathi Indira Gandhi to take on biogas as a rural energy system in one National Day address. The country that inspired him to ask the question ‘what is the right technology for India?’ beckoned him to see the situation firsthand.

In one journey he had come across a fertile patch of agriculture and upon inquiry had been told of the biogas system that the farmer was using. He had observed the use of gas for cooking and lighting and the residual as fertiliser. What went in to the unit he realised was animal waste.

He was impressed by visualising the tremendous potential in a country with the largest cattle population of the world. Many people in India were simply burning dried cow dung cakes to release some heat for cooking and in this simple alternative technology, he saw multiple opportunities and improvements.

The biogas unit was almost an answer to his question or rather offered the attributes that he was seeking. In Delhi he discussed this with the late Indian Premier and she took it up and announced the readiness of the Indian Government to support biogas and the Indian biogas story took a new turn since then.

Schumacher’s power was in influencing and coming from his string belief on this system. This may also show up another side in Asian politics as many a time the politicians have not seen what is possible within when shown by their own people but respond with abundant enthusiasm and vigour when shown by an outsider. That however was not an issue with Schumacher who saw, understood and moved the ‘powers’ to support grass root development. He was well positioned to get the right attentive ear.

Lessons for Sri Lanka



The discussions and the results from the symposium will be made available and the insights should be of use. Businesses and the private sector must consider social and environmental aspects, thus complementing the profit component.

Governance aspects need to be transparent and focused on long-term issues as well. Energy in Sri Lanka and renewables in particular need to be developed with more focus and attention should be paid to decentralised operations.

More can be said as we feel in general the directions that we are taking are not in line with Schumacher’s way. However, there is no need to follow Schumacher blindly, the question only being whether what he stated make sense from our development aspirations and if the answer is yes, then we should see how best we could accommodate some of these concepts.

My view is his statements make more sense perhaps today than at the time they were made. The greening of the economy is at the heart of his argument supported by sustainable consumption.

The activities should not be carried out on the fringe. Institutions should value and embed different ways of approaching problem solving, going beyond his writings and statements that were his reasoning for the start of Intermediate Technology Development Group. How can an INGO based on useful set of ideas influence policy making institutions at national level to embrace ‘Small is Beautiful’ as against ‘the Bigger the Better’ in many ways held traditionally within corridors of power?

‘Small is Possible’



A collection of his speeches appeared as a book after his death in 1977. The book titled ‘Good Work’ carries the message that ‘Small is Possible’. It will be instructive to consider how he would have envisage the current industrial revolution of nanotechnology as it embraces the workings of really, really small and gives us all the possibilities of making more with less.

Thus we should not fear to embrace the advanced thinking that is not appropriate, but must believe in seeing the local contribution and what it is capable of yielding. That is the big difference between getting mesmerised over an oversized automobile and a hyper sensitive microscope which can give many answers across many fields.

As per today’s valuations, both these come to the same value. Needless to emphasise, what is more useful and can do more was not a fact well understood in Sri Lanka until the national nanotechnology initiative came about.

How do we start on this transformational journey from linear thinking to greener thinking? May be for those who are uninitiated, grab a copy of ‘Small is Beautiful’ and immerse yourself first with his thinking and see for yourself.



(The writer is Professor of Chemical and Process Engineering at the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. With an initial BSc Chemical engineering Honours degree from Moratuwa, he proceeded to the University of Cambridge for his PhD. He is also the Director of UOM-Cargills Food Process Development Incubator at University of Moratuwa. He can be reached via email on [email protected])