[Stoves] Discussion about decentalized versus centralised

[Richard Stanley]

Paul;
 Hmm; I was wondering if you meant the US modern economy instead of, "the colonial powers' but that strays from the discussion doesn't it !
 
As concerns examples of small groups thriving; In Kenya for example, there are four core trainer teams that we know of directly. Each of these also produces their own briquettes and sells them and has done so well before they began to train others. They each have probably trained over 25 different sessions by now with an emerging average of probably between 4 to 5 new groups trained per team, per year.  Each training group is comprised of between generally 16 and 24 persons, which results in the emergence of three to four production teams, each serving a  market of 40 to 60 families (ie., ≈300 persons reached per each production team), on an ongoing basis) . The training spreads quietly based on local word of mouth and local market demand   mostly (we add in new referrals as we receive them online); The process is, importantly, self sustained as training fees are charged for training and equipment.  

The pattern is the same for Tanzania Uganda and Malawi Nepal, The Philippines, Haiti and about 40 other nations.. I do not know how many exactly are trained or even whom they may be as each trainer teams operated pretty much independent of or or any other expat/extranhero's  influence. The simple fact is that they sustain them selves by the services they provide locally with locally made equipment or any sort they choose according to what they need and can source locally. Anyone wanting training can contact them and sort out the details themselves. We hope to be kept in the loop so we can try to track it all, but frankly we utterly fail in doing this due to a combination of the inability of most trainers to assess email easily, the trainers own retisence to share infromation and to no small degree,  our own incompetence to maintain an ongoing tracking system.(where are the interns when you need them ?).

To say "make it big" is a bit of an oxymoron in such a setting of distributed but networked array of small producers trainer teams To say perhaps, 'make it widely distributed through a strong network of increasing numbers of trainers and producers' might afford a better metric. One in this arena cant help but feel the want for new vocabulary to define growth and "success" . 

Times are indeed a changin…   




On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Paul Anderson wrote:

Stovers,

1.   Congratulations to us all for actually keeping the discussion related to the Subject line for so many messages. :-) 

2.   The "mind set" of the centralized advocates (not all, but for many, and increasingly so as the entity gets bigger) tend to have a more financially-focused objective OF THE ENTITY THAT HAS RESOURCES AND LONGEVITY, while the decentralized advocates tend toward the financially-focused objective OF A SMALL OPERATION TRYING TO SURVIVE WITH A VERY SMALL BASE.

Neither is inherently bad, but when the big and centralized entity comes mainly from outside of an area that has primarily small and decentralized entities, it can hurt the small entities.

It is a judgement call whether the big outsider (or the "acquired local entities that represent the big outsider") should have that       much influence.   That is why in some cases tariffs and other barriers are erected.   

A troublesome analogy is that of the colonial powers of 1700 to 1950 that were are the big entities that "supposedly" brought progress to their colonies.   Some colonial rulers did better than other (for themselves or for the local people).

Colonial powers were not outlawed, they only became out-dated and they changed methods from political/military rule to forms of economic influence.   

What does this have to do with Stoves?   A lot, but not something that can be decided at an ETHOS discussion or on-line, but that should be discussed.   

Do we have any concrete examples of small decentalized that made it big while staying small?   I previously mentioned the Kenyan Ceramic Jiko (KCJ  ===  even earned its own acronym!!!).   Any others?   

Paul    (currently in the decentralized trenches of gasifier stove work in Uganda.)
Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD  
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

I think the comments below by Richard and Michael are worth reading, if you are new to this discussion.
On 1/3/2014 12:11 PM, Richard Stanley wrote:
> Dear Michael in Marujo, and all others of the decentralisation camp,
> 
> In thinking a bit more about it, seems that as I write from my I Mac or call thru the iphone, centralisation of certain things is a good thing. What  is not good, as many others have said or implied  here, is the incumbent growth of non accountability, transparency,  flexibility of design and involvement and localised responsibility that keeps the centrailsed operation honest. Whats not good as well in the centralised model,  is the carbon footprint of mass distribution form production centers Whats 
> Even more 'not good' about a priori centralised thinking, is the attendant infestation of  the posturing, power plays and positioning and image maintenance that so often overrides the core purpose of the centralised production effort in the first place.. (cheaper, better quality etc etc…).
> 
>  The wonderful fact of the matter is that the sheer logistics, communications access, and cultural and political differences will continue to make it near impossible to ever reach the burgenoning majority of the globe's population by this model. 
> We have to learn, in that politically long incorrect saying, to bring the mountain to Mohammed --to adapt design not only FOR but WITH and WITHIN the population of potential adapters.
> The trick is how to do this get paid for it and assure that those who are using it will get paid for it as well each according to their own skills, and interests. 
> But even that is not enough; We need to have the input of all concerned for, no one of us is as smart as all of us.
> 
> The question becomes how to adapt, integrate, learn with and from the 'engagees'   as active and equal participants  in the process, all the while assuring each participant's option for  accessing their market for training and their own product sales. Thats a difficult pill to swallow for most of the good technical minds we encounter here in the west. Its not so difficult for the technician academic, trainer or producer from most nations south to anywhere else south though.  For that I feel sorry for the former group. They are  missing a lot. 
> 
> I am not playing mother Theresa here: Its just common sense You do not move forward in your line of work in such a way as to  cause others to be left behind as a result. All you wind up with in your with is a defensive lifestyle lived behind gated communities. For what ? Our fello citisens of the shared planet  need the option for access (and admittedly many may decide to not take that option) to make it themselves, otherwise you have what we now have instability, resource mining, environmental imbalance, political upset, military investment  etc etc... globally under the guide of the free market unregulated systems.
> 
> Really, isn't this just all common sense? where is the rocket science and why don't we seem to get it?
> 
>  So I'd vote, along with many of us,  for centralisation for those products that demand very specialised and very highly skilled resources but only where subcomponents cannot be made locally but starting from the platform of of thinking localised and inclusive and networked and engaged as possible. 
>  
> Aluta continua,
> Richard / Ashland
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 3, 2014, at 6:39 AM, <mtrevor at ntamar.net> <mtrevor at ntamar.net> wrote:
> 
> Interesting discussion it is surprising how wide spread around the world the support for decentralization is even with
> its problems warts and whiskers.
> Growing up in the middle of the 20th century  I remember when there were A & Ps,  IGAs  Rexalls
> Texacos etc. scattered all across the United States. people were optimistic and the future bright.
> Then came the alphabet soup CFOs CEOs MBA and the Walmarta, Enrons,  the dotcoms and all the rest.
> Now we have the 1 % and the greatest misdistribution of wealth known to mankind.
> Some how I just do not feel comfortable about the idea of massive centralization.
> But then again consider what would happen today if Abraham Lincoln was caught returning some little old lady’s cash
> by one of todays CFOs or MBAs
>  
> Curmugeonly In Majuro,
> Michael N Trevor
>  
> 

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140104/45d17e38/attachment.html>