Future of Technology and International

S Development
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
f
o
r
t
t
h
e
4 Letter from Judith Rodin
President of the Rockefeller Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation supports work that expands opportunity and strengthens resilience to social, economic,
health, and environmental challenges — affirming its pioneering philanthropic mission, since 1913, to “promote the
well-being” of humanity. We take a synergistic, strategic approach that places a high value on innovative processes and
encourages new ways of seeking ideas, to break down silos and encourage interdisciplinary thinking.

One important — and novel — component of our strategy toolkit is scenario planning, a process of creating narratives
about the future based on factors likely to affect a particular set of challenges and opportunities. We believe that scenario
planning has great potential for use in philanthropy to identify unique interventions, simulate and rehearse important
decisions that could have profound implications, and highlight previously undiscovered areas of connection and
intersection. Most important, by providing a methodological structure that helps us focus on what we don’t know —
instead of what we already know — scenario planning allows us to achieve impact more effectively.

The results of our first scenario planning exercise demonstrate a provocative and engaging exploration of the role of
technology and the future of globalization, as you will see in the following pages. This report is crucial reading for
anyone interested in creatively considering the multiple, divergent ways in which our world could evolve. The sparks of
insight inspiring these narratives — along with their implications for philanthropy as a whole — were generated through
the invaluable collaboration of grantee representatives, external experts, and Rockefeller Foundation staff. I offer a
special thanks to Peter Schwartz, Andrew Blau, and the entire team at Global Business Network, who have helped guide
us through this stimulating and energizing process.
Scenarios for the
Future of
Research Unit, which analyzes emerging risks and opportunities and thinks imaginatively about how to respond
Technology and to the complex, rapidly changing world around us. This outward-looking intelligence function adopts a cross-
International
Development cutting mindset that synthesizes and integrates knowledge that accelerates our ability to act more quickly and
5 effectively. It has also helped to shape and build the notion of “pro-poor foresight” that is committed to applying
forward-looking tools and techniques to improve the lives of poor and vulnerable populations around the world.
Leading
this effort I hope this publication makes clear exactly why my colleagues and I are so excited about the promise of using
at the scenario planning to develop robust strategies and offer a refreshing viewpoint on the possibilities that lie ahead.
Rockefeller We welcome your feedback.
Foundation
is our Judith Rodin President The Rockefeller Foundation
Letter from Peter Schwartz
Cofounder and Chairman of Global Business Network
We are at a moment in history that is full of opportunity. Technology is poised to transform the lives of millions of people
throughout the world, especially those who have had little or no access to the tools that can deliver sustainable improvements for
their families and communities. From farmers using mobile phones to buy and sell crops to doctors remotely monitoring and
treating influenza outbreaks in rural villages, technology is rapidly becoming more and more integral to the pace and progress of
development.

Philanthropy has a unique and critical role to play in this process. By focusing its patience, capital, and attention on the links
between technology and international development, philanthropy will change not just lives but the very context in which the
field of philanthropy operates. This report represents an initial step in that direction. It explores four very different — yet very
possible — scenarios for the future of technology and development in order to illuminate the challenges and opportunities that
may lie ahead. It promotes a deeper understanding of the complex forces and dynamics that will accelerate or inhibit the use of
technology to spur growth, opportunity, and resilience especially in the developing world. Finally, it will seed a new strategic
conversation among the key public, private, and philanthropic stakeholders about technology and development at the policy,
program, and human levels.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s use of scenario planning to explore technology and international development has been both
inspired and ambitious. Throughout my 40-plus-year career as a scenario planner, I have worked with many of the world’s
leading companies, governments, foundations, and nonprofits — and I know firsthand the power of the approach. Scenario
planning is a powerful tool precisely because the future is unpredictable and shaped by many interacting variables. Scenarios
enable us to think creatively and rigorously about the different ways these forces may interact, while forcing us to challenge our
own assumptions about what we
6
believe or hope the future will be. Scenarios embrace and weave together multiple perspectives and provide an ongoing
framework for spotting and making sense of important changes as they emerge. Perhaps most importantly, scenarios give us a
new, shared language that deepens our conversations about the future and how we can help to shape it.

The Rockefeller Foundation has already used this project as an opportunity to clarify and advance the relationship between
technology and development. Through interviews and the scenario workshops, they have engaged a diverse set of people —
from different geographies, disciplines, and sectors — to identify the key forces driving change, to explore the most critical
uncertainties, and to develop challenging yet plausible scenarios and implications. They have stretched their thinking far beyond
theoretical models of technology innovation and diffusion in order to imagine how technology could actually change the lives of
people from many walks of life. This is only the start of an important conversation that will continue to shape the potential of
technology and international development going forward. I look forward to staying a part of that conversation and to the better
future it will bring.

Peter Schwartz Cofounder and Chairman Global Business Network

7
Sc

Introduction
en
ari
os
for
the
Fu
tur
e
of
Te
For decades, technology has been dramatically changing not just the lives of individuals in
ch
nol
developed countries, but increasingly the lives and livelihoods of people throughout the
og
y developing world. Whether it is a community mobile phone, a solar panel, a new farming
an
d practice, or a cutting-edge medical device, technology is altering the landscape of possibility
Int
er in places where possibilities used to be scarce. And yet looking out to the future, there is no single story to
na
tio be told about how technology will continue to help shape — or even revolutionize — life in developing countries. There
nal
De
are many possibilities, some good and some less so, some known and some unknowable. Indeed, for everything we think
vel we can anticipate about how technology and international development will interact and intertwine in the next 20 years
op
me and beyond, there is so much more that we cannot yet even imagine.
nt
8 For philanthropies as well as for other organizations, this presents a unique challenge: given the uncertainty about how the
future will play out, how can we best position ourselves not just to identify technologies that improve the lives of poor
communities but also to help scale and spread those that emerge? And how will the social, technological, economic,
environmental, and political conditions of the future enable or inhibit our ability to do so?

The Rockefeller Foundation believes that in order to understand the many ways in which technology will impact
international development in the future, we must first broaden and deepen our individual and collective understanding of
the range of possibilities. This report, and the project upon which it is based, is one attempt to do that. In it, we share the
outputs and insights from a year-long project, undertaken by the Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network
(GBN), designed to
Sc
en
of technology in international development through scenario planning, a methodology in which GBN is a long-time
ari leader.
os
for
the This report builds on the Rockefeller Foundation’s growing body of work in the emerging field of pro-poor foresight. In
Fu
tur 2009, the Institute for Alternative Futures published the report Foresight for Smart Globalization: Accelerating and
e
of
Enhancing Pro-Poor Development Opportunities, with support from the Rockefeller Foundation. That effort was a
Te reflection of the Foundation’s strong commitment to exploring innovative processes and embracing new pathways for
ch
nol insight aimed at helping the world’s poor. With this report, the Foundation takes a further step in advancing the field of
og
y pro-poor foresight, this time through the lens of scenario planning.
an
d
Int
er
na
WHY SCENARIOS?
tio
nal The goal of this project was not to affirm what is already known and knowable about what is happening right now at the
De
vel intersections of technology and development. Rather, it was to explore the many ways in which technology and
op
me development could co-evolve — could both push and inhibit each other — in the future, and then to begin to examine
nt what those possible alternative paths may imply for the world’s poor and vulnerable populations. Such an exercise
9
required project participants to push their thinking far beyond the status quo, into uncharted territory.
e
Scenario planning is a methodology designed to help guide groups and individuals through exactly this creative process.
x
The process begins by identifying forces of change in the world, then combining those forces in different ways to create a
pl
set of diverse stories — or scenarios — about how the future could evolve. Scenarios are designed to stretch our thinking
o
about both the opportunities and obstacles that the future might hold; they explore, through narrative, events and
re
dynamics that might alter, inhibit, or enhance current trends, often in surprising ways. Together, a set of scenarios
th
captures a range of future possibilities, good and bad, expected and surprising — but always plausible. Importantly,
e
scenarios are not predictions. Rather, they are thoughtful hypotheses that allow us to imagine, and then to rehearse,
r
different strategies for how to be more prepared for the future — or more ambitiously, how to help shape better futures
ol
ourselves.
e
W al point of this project because of its potentially transformative role — both in a positive and negative way — in
H addressing a wide range of development challenges, from climate change, healthcare, and agriculture to housing,
Y transportation, and education. Yet while there is little doubt that technology will continue to be a driver of change across
the developing world in the future, the precise trajectory along which technological innovation will travel is highly
uncertain. For example, will critical technological advances come from the developed world, or will innovators and their
T innovations be more geographically dispersed? Or, how might the global economic and political environment affect the
E pace of technology development?
C
H It is important to state that in focusing on technology, this project did not set out to identify a set of exact, yet-to-be-
invented technologies that will help shape and change the future. Rather, the goal was to gain a broader and richer
N understanding of different paths along which technology could develop — paths that will be strongly influenced by the
O overall global environment in which the inventors and adopters of those technologies will find themselves working and
L dwelling. Technology, as a category, cannot be divorced from the context in which it develops. The scenarios shared in
O this report explore four such contexts, each of which, as you’ll see, suggests very different landscapes for technology and
G its potential impacts in the developing world.
Y Finally, a note about what we mean by “technology.” In this report, we use the term to refer to a broad spectrum of tools
? and methods of organization. Technologies can range from tools for basic survival, such as a treadle pump and basic
filtration technologies, to more advanced innovations, such as methods of collecting and utilizing data in health
T
informatics and novel building materials with real-time environmental sensing capabilities. This report focuses on themes
e
associated with the widespread scalability, adoption, and assessment of technology in the developing world. While the
c
scenarios themselves are narratives about the global environment, we have paid particular attention to how events might
h
transpire in sub- Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and India.
n 10
ol
o
g
y
w
a
s
c
h
o
s
e
n
a
s
a
f
o
c
T roject has a focal question — a broad yet strategic query that serves as an anchor for the scenarios. For this project, the
H focal question was:
E How might technology affect barriers to building resilience and equitable growth in the
F developing world over the next 15 to 20 years?
O
C In other words, what new or existing technologies could be leveraged to improve the capacity of individuals,
A communities, and systems to respond to major changes, or what technologies could improve the lives of vulnerable
L populations around the world? A 15- to 20-year timeframe was chosen on the assumption that it is both sufficiently long
enough that significant technological change is plausible and sufficiently short enough that we can imagine some
Q
possibilities for the kinds of technologies that could be developed and applied. Focusing on how to overcome a set of
U obstacles associated with the application of technology to the challenges of development helped to both bound the inquiry
E and promote a problem-solving approach that seeks to identify potential, systematic intervention opportunities.
S
T
I ENGAGING YOUR IMAGINATION
O It is our hope that these scenarios help inspire the same future-orientation in other initiatives that are broadly concerned
N with technology and international development. Of course, there is no hard data about the future — nobody yet knows
precisely what technologies will be successful at addressing new and evolving development needs. Rather, as you read the
scenarios, think of them as a journey — four journeys — into a future that is relevant, thought-provoking, and possible.
E Imagine how the world will function and how it will be organized to tackle the challenges it faces. Who will be
v responsible for driving local and global development initiatives and what would that require? And what is your own role
er in leading your organization, community, or region to a preferred future?
y
s
c
e A Note on Terminology
n
The Foundation’s work promotes “resilience and equitable growth.” Resilience refers to the capacity of individuals,
ar communities, and systems to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of changes, even catastrophic incidents. Equitable growth
io involves enabling individuals, communities, and institutions to access new tools, practices, resources, services, and products.
p 11
Scenarios are a medium through which great change can be not just envisioned but also actualized. The more closely you read
them, the more likely it becomes that you will recognize their important but less obvious implications to you, your work, and
your community. We strongly encourage you to share and discuss this report widely, use it as a springboard for further creative
thinking about how technology could shape development, and test and adjust your strategies or personal actions accordingly.

It is also our hope that these scenarios help to identify potential areas of future work for governments, philanthropies,
corporations, and nonprofits, and that they illuminate choices and commitments that a wide range of organizations may want to
make in these areas in the future.
FURTHER READING ON TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT
This report adds to a growing body of literature focusing on the relationship between technology, development, and social
systems. While not a comprehensive list, the following readings offer additional insights on this topic.

• Caroline Wagner, The New Invisible College: Science for Development, 2008.

• Institute for the Future, Science and Technology Outlook: 2005-2055, 2006.

• RAND Corporation, The Global Technology Revolution 2020, In-Depth Analyses, 2006.

• World Bank, Science, Technology, and Innovation: Capacity Building for Sustainable Growth and Poverty Reduction,
2008.

• UN Millennium Project, Task Force on Science, Technology, and Innovation, Innovation: Applying Knowledge in
Development, 2006.

• W. Brian Arthur, The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, 2009.

• STEPS Centre Working Papers, Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A New Manifesto, 2009.
12
The Scenario Framework
The Rockefeller Foundation and GBN began the scenario process by surfacing a host of driving
forces that would affect the future of technology and international development. These forces were
generated through both secondary research and in-depth interviews with Foundation staff,
Foundation grantees, and external experts. Next, all these constituents came together in several exploratory
workshops to further brainstorm the content of these forces, which could be divided into two categories: predetermined elements
and critical uncertainties. A good starting point for any set of scenarios is to understand those driving forces that we can be
reasonably certain will shape the worlds we are describing, also known as “predetermined elements.” For example, it is a near
geopolitical certainty that — with the rise of China, India, and other nations — a multi-polar global system is emerging. One
demographic certainty is that global population growth will continue and will put pressure on energy, food, and water resources
— especially in the developing world. Another related certainty: that the world will strive to source more of its energy from
renewable resources and may succeed, but there will likely still be a significant level of global interdependence on energy.

Predetermined elements are important to any scenario story, but they are not the foundation on which these stories are built.
Rather, scenarios are formed around “critical uncertainties” — driving forces that are considered both highly important to the
focal issue and highly uncertain in terms of their future resolution. Whereas predetermined elements are predictable driving
forces, uncertainties are by their nature unpredictable: their outcome can be guessed at but not known.
13
While any single uncertainty could challenge our thinking, the future will be shaped by multiple forces playing out over time.
The scenario framework provides a structured way to consider how these critical uncertainties might unfold and evolve in
combination. Identifying the two most important uncertainties guarantees that the resulting scenarios will differ in ways that
have been judged to be critical to the focal question.

CHOOSING THE CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES

During this project’s scenario creation workshop, participants — who represented a range of regional and international
perspectives — selected the two critical uncertainties that would form the basis of the scenario framework. They chose these
two uncertainties from a longer list of potential uncertainties that might shape the broader contextual environment of the
scenarios, including social, technology, economic, environmental, and political trends. The uncertainties that were considered
included, for example, the pervasiveness of conflict in the developing world; the frequency and severity of shocks like economic
and political crises, disease, and natural disasters; and the locus of innovation for crucial technologies for development. (A full
list of the critical uncertainties identified during the project, as well as a list of project participants, can be found in the
Appendix.)

The two chosen uncertainties, introduced below, together define a set of four that are divergent, challenging, internally
consistent, and plausible. Each of the two uncertainties is expressed as an axis that represents a continuum of possibilities
ranging between two endpoints. ADAPTIVE CAPACITY HIGH LOW POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ALIGNMENT WEAK STRONG
14
GLOBAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
ALIGNMENT
This uncertainty refers to the capacity at different levels of
This uncertainty refers to both the amount of economic society to cope with change and to adapt effectively. This
integration — the flow of goods, capital, people, and ideas — ability to adapt can mean proactively managing existing
as well as the extent to which enduring and effective political systems and structures to ensure their resilience against
structures enable the world to deal with many of the global external forces, as well as the ability to transform those
challenges it faces. On one end of the axis, we would see a systems and structures when a changed context means they
more integrated global economy with high trade volumes, are no longer suitable. Adaptive capacity is generally
which enables access to a wider range of goods and services associated with higher levels of education in a society, as well
through imports and exports, and the increasing specialization as the availability of outlets for those who have educations to
of exports. We would also see more cooperation at the supra- further their individual and societal well-being. High levels of
national level, fostering increased collaboration, strengthened adaptive capacity are typically achieved through the existence
global institutions, and the formation of effective international of trust in society; the presence and tolerance of novelty and
problem-solving networks. At the other axis endpoint, the diversity; the strength, variety, and overlap of human
potential for economic development in the developing world institutions; and the free flow of communication and ideas,
would be reduced by the fragility of the overall global especially between and across different levels, e.g., bottom-
economy — coupled with protectionism and fragmentation of up and top-down. Lower levels of adaptive capacity emerge
trade — along with a weakening of governance regimes that in the absence of these characteristics and leave populations
raise barriers to cooperation, thereby hindering agreement on particularly vulnerable to the disruptive effects of
and implementation of large-scale, interconnected solutions to unanticipated shocks.
15
pressing global challenges.
Once crossed, these axes create a matrix of four very different futures:

LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government HACK ATTACK – An economically unstable and
control and more authoritarian eadership, with limited shock-prone world in which governments weaken,
innovation and growing citizen pushback criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge

CLEVER TOGETHER – A world in which highly SMART SCRAMBLE – An economically

coordinated and successful strategies emerge for depressed world in which individuals and communities
addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set
of problems
16
THE SCENARIO NARRATIVES • A “day in the life” sketch of a person living and working
in that world
The scenarios that follow are not meant to be exhaustive —
rather, they are designed to be both plausible and provocative, Please keep in mind that the scenarios in this report are
to engage your imagination while also raising new questions stories, not forecasts, and the plausibility of a scenario does
for you about what that future might look and feel like. Each not hinge on the occurrence of any particular detail. In the
scenario tells a story of how the world, and in particular the scenario titled “Clever Together,” for example, “a consortium
developing world, might progress over the next 15 to 20 years, of nations, NGOs [non-governmental organizations], and
with an emphasis on those elements relating to the use of companies establish the Global Technology Assessment
different technologies and the interaction of these Office” — a detail meant to symbolize how a high degree of
technologies with the lives of the poor and vulnerable. international coordination and adaptation might lead to the
Accompanying each scenario is a range of elements that formation of a body that anticipates technology’s potential
aspire to further illuminate life, technology, and philanthropy societal implications. That detail, along with dozens of others
in that world. These include: in each scenario, is there to give you a more tangible “feel”
for the world described in the scenario. Please consider
• A timeline of possible headlines and emblematic events names, dates, and other such specifics in each scenario as
unfolding during the period of the scenario proxies for types of events, not as necessary conditions for
any particular scenario to unfold.
• Short descriptions of what technologies and technology
trends we might see We now invite you to immerse yourself in each future world
and consider four different visions for the evolution of
• Initial observations on the changing role of philanthropy technology and international development to 2030.
in that world, highlighting opportunities and challenges 17
that philanthropic organizations would face and what
their operating environment might be like
Scenario
Narratives
LOCK STEP
A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited
innovation and growing citizen pushback
In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for
years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza
strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely
virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations
were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the
world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and
killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them
healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect
on economies: international mobility of both people and goods
screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and
breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling
shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of
both employees and customers.

The pandemic blanketed the planet — though disproportionate

numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America,
where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official
containment protocols. But even in developed countries,
containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial
policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved
deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not
just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few
countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese
government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory
quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-
hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives,
stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other
countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.
18
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation
measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but
the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic
authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the growth.
mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks
at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and Across the developing world, however, the story was
supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more different — and much more variable. Top-down authority
authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on
activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In
themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall
from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for
crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when
firmer grip on power. the government outlawed high-emitting vehicles. In Ghana,
the introduction of ambitious government programs to
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of
acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-
their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked
states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens less well — and in some cases tragically — in countries run
were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to
and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.
impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries,
this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent
all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018
industries whose stability was deemed vital to national World Cup, for example,
19
Scenario Narratives LOCK STEP
wore bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national flag. Strong technology regulations stifled
innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. In the developing world, access to “approved”
technologies increased but beyond that remained limited: the locus of technology innovation was largely
in the developed world, leaving many developing countries on the receiving end of technologies that
others consider “best” for them. Some governments found this patronizing and refused to distribute
computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as “second hand.” Meanwhile, developing countries
with more resources and better capacity began to innovate internally to fill these gaps on their own.

Meanwhile, in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and norms greatly inhibited
entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to
pursue and were guided mostly toward projects that would make money (e.g., market-driven product
development) or were “sure bets” (e.g., fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research
areas largely untapped. Well-off countries and monopolistic companies with big research and
development budgets still made significant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained
locked behind strict national or corporate protection. Russia and India imposed stringent domestic
standards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers — a category that
in reality meant all IT innovations. The U.S. and EU struck back with retaliatory national standards,
throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion of technology globally.

Especially in the developing world, acting in one’s national self-interest often meant seeking practical
alliances that fit with those

“IT IS POSSIBLE TO DISCIPLINE

AND CONTROL SOME SOCIETIES
FOR SOME TIME, BUT NOT THE
WHOLE WORLD ALL THE TIME.”
– GK Bhat, TARU Leading Edge, India