Technology: Friend or Foe?

As discussed last week, the well-being of a nation is largely dependent upon its economic success. In his book, The New Industrial State, John Kenneth Galbraith states that Gross National Product (or GNP) is the most accurate measurement of a country's social health. The macroeconomy, (as opposed to the microeconomy), is the greatest 'driving force' that affects individual citizens; in other words, Galbraith is arguing that national success is down to the combined prosperity of large, international corporations, otherwise referred to as the technostructure. But is this entirely true?

Members of the technostructure, (including all levels of the social hierarchy), aim to adapt the goals of individual corporations to benefit themselves, as well as the country as a whole. Thus, the technostructure seeks to 'mould social prurpose'; an individual member's natural instincts to survive and prosper within society are married with the desire for self-fulfillment, gained in serving a 'greater purpose' than their own. So, the system effectively acts as a self sustaining 'ecosphere', in which both member and corporation are interdependent. The corporation seeks drive and direction through its members, and the members, in turn, are kept both healthy and motivated, thus improving their utility and again lending to the ultimate prosperity of the corporation. Of course, this analogy breaks down when the technostructure decides it must co-operate with others, (in the form of international trade), whereby it may further its economic success.

Over recent decades, the importance of technology to individual firms has become far more prevalent. Indeed, Galbraith argues that it is now vital to any large corporation and stands as one of three vital ingredients to the achievement of the technostructure's goals. The other two are specialists, who are required to have a full understanding as to the operation of the technology, and coordination, so as the corporations operate to their maximum potential.

But what are the fundamental goals of the technostructure? They are those that pertain to the upkeep of the entire nation's economic success, one of the two most important being corporate growth. This, Galbraith says, is usually achieved through sales (of either product or service) and ultimately leads to an expansion that opens more job opportunites and reduces the threat of contraction, which can cause substantial costs to firms. However, more important is the sustainment of the technostructure's autonomy, i.e. the security of survival. Prevention of loss comes before maximization of revenues, or else stockholders may become disillusioned and cease 'to remain quiescent' (pp.209, 1967). The protection of the autonomy is key and this is the sole purpose of profit, before growth can even be considered.

Technology is vital to maintaining maximum production levels, the upkeep of important, lawful administration, amongst other business factors, and has thus become essential for corporations to keep pace with both national and international competition. It eternally drives the macroeconomy forward, leaving those smaller firms, which cannot afford such resources, faltering in their wake. The question is, should this be the case?

Although it's hard to see how this may be resolved, my answer would be no. Consider that over the next fifty years, the progress of technology continues at such a rate that ultimately, human labour becomes unnecessary. Not only are our products created by robots, but their transport is controlled by computers, shelves are stocked automatically and tills are operated by machines. The only jobs that are required to be filled by ourselves are those of the deified 'specialists' and the theorists who teach them. Industry becomes unrecognisable and while I've used the example of product, the same theory may be applied to service as well. Fancy a nice, relaxing back massage from R2-D2?

Members simply become consumers, but of course, with no employment, how do they afford to consume at all? There seems to me to be a contradiction in goals here; while the technostructure aims to survive in an ever growing, competitive environment, it may end up doing so at the expense of previously employed members and thus, future trade, making future contractions an inevitability.

While this may be a bleak scenario (and one that is in no way a certainty), my point is that what seems to be a quick dismissal, on Galbraith's part, as to the importance of the microeconomy is somewhat debatable. Small businesses play their own part in the circular flow of income and in so doing, keep the economy thriving and I think their own protection is vital. Again, maybe just something for the coalition to keep in mind!