Part V — Technology Evaluation in Developing Economies, Responsible Technology Adoption, and the Future of Technology Evaluation

Chapter 17. Technology Evaluation in Developing and Emerging Economies

17.1 Introduction

Technological transformation is increasingly central to economic and social development. Digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence, renewable energy, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, mobile technologies, digital financial services, educational technologies, and healthcare technologies can expand access to services and create new economic opportunities. At the same time, technological transformation can reinforce existing inequalities when access to infrastructure, finance, education, skills, or institutional protection is uneven (United Nations, 2015; World Bank, 2016).

For developing and emerging economies, technology evaluation therefore requires a developmental perspective. The relevant question is not merely whether a technology is technically sophisticated. The question is whether it is appropriate, accessible, affordable, sustainable, secure, maintainable, and capable of producing meaningful benefits in the context where it will be used.

A highly sophisticated technology may be unsuitable where electricity supply is unreliable, broadband access is limited, technical support is unavailable, imported components are difficult to obtain, or users lack the skills necessary to operate the system. Conversely, relatively simple technologies can produce significant developmental benefits when they respond directly to local needs.

Technology evaluation should therefore consider what may be called contextual technological value.

Contextual Technological Value

Contextual technological value refers to the extent to which a technology produces meaningful benefits relative to the institutional, economic, social, environmental, cultural, and infrastructural conditions of its intended setting.

This principle extends the conventional technology assessment question:

“Does the technology work?”

toward a broader set of questions:

“Does it work here?”

“Can people access it?”

“Can organizations sustain it?”

“Can institutions govern it?”

“Can users benefit from it?”

“What unintended consequences may arise?”

“Does it contribute to sustainable human development?”

These questions are particularly important because development is multidimensional. Sen (1999) conceptualizes development in terms of expanding human capabilities and freedoms rather than merely increasing income. Technology should therefore be evaluated partly according to the capabilities and opportunities that it enables.

17.2 Developing and Emerging Economies as Distinct Evaluation Contexts

Developing and emerging economies are not homogeneous categories. Countries differ substantially in income, infrastructure, governance, education, technological capabilities, industrial structures, demographic characteristics, and institutional development.

Consequently, there is no universal “developing-country technology model.”

Technology evaluation should instead begin with contextual analysis.

Important contextual variables include:

national income and purchasing power;

electricity availability and reliability;

telecommunications infrastructure;

broadband availability;

digital literacy;

educational capacity;

healthcare capacity;

transportation infrastructure;

institutional quality;

regulatory capacity;

access to finance;

availability of skilled personnel;

local manufacturing capacity;

cybersecurity capability;

data governance capacity;

environmental conditions;

climate vulnerability;

cultural and linguistic diversity;

gender and social inequalities; and

dependence on imported technology.

A technology evaluation that ignores these variables can produce misleading conclusions.

17.3 Technology and Development

Technology has historically contributed to productivity growth, communication, scientific advancement, healthcare, education, and economic transformation. However, technology does not automatically generate development.

The relationship can be represented as:

Technology → Capability → Adoption → Use → Outcomes → Development

Each stage introduces potential failure.

A technology may be technically capable but inaccessible. It may be accessible but poorly adopted. It may be adopted but poorly implemented. It may be implemented but produce unintended consequences. It may generate benefits for one population while creating disadvantages for another.

This means that technology evaluation must distinguish between technological potential and realized developmental impact.

The distinction is particularly important in digital transformation. World Bank (2016) emphasized that digital technologies can expand opportunities, but their benefits depend partly on complementary factors such as skills, accountable institutions, and appropriate regulations.

17.4 The Digital Divide

The digital divide is one of the most important considerations in technology evaluation.

The digital divide should not be understood only as a question of whether individuals have access to a computer or internet connection. It includes multiple dimensions:

access;

affordability;

quality of connectivity;

digital skills;

quality of devices;

availability of relevant content;

ability to use digital services effectively; and

ability to convert digital access into meaningful outcomes.

Thus, two communities may technically have internet access while experiencing very different levels of digital inclusion.

Technology evaluation should therefore include an accessibility assessment.

Table 17.1 — Digital Inclusion Evaluation

A technology that is available only to affluent users may increase rather than reduce inequality.

17.5 Infrastructure Readiness

Infrastructure readiness is a fundamental component of technology evaluation in developing economies.

A technology may require:

reliable electricity;

high-speed internet;

cloud connectivity;

specialized hardware;

data centres;

technical support;

secure payment systems;

transportation infrastructure;

laboratory facilities; or

specialized maintenance.

The absence of these conditions can reduce technological effectiveness.

For example, an AI-enabled healthcare system may perform well in a technically advanced hospital but become unreliable if connectivity is intermittent or if the health facility cannot maintain the required equipment.

Similarly, an online education platform may provide sophisticated learning resources but have limited impact if students lack devices or affordable internet access.

Technology evaluation should therefore include an infrastructure dependency analysis.

17.6 Affordability and Total Cost of Ownership

The initial purchase price of a technology does not represent its full economic cost.

Technology evaluation should consider total cost of ownership (TCO), including:

acquisition;

installation;

customization;

training;

maintenance;

software licensing;

cybersecurity;

upgrades;

data storage;

technical support;

energy;

replacement;

disposal; and

decommissioning.

A low-cost technology may become expensive over its lifecycle if it requires proprietary maintenance or frequent upgrades.

This is especially significant where foreign exchange constraints make imported software, hardware, spare parts, and subscription services expensive.

17.7 Technology Dependency and Vendor Lock-In

Developing economies can become dependent on foreign technologies, platforms, cloud infrastructure, software providers, intellectual property, and specialized expertise.

Dependency is not necessarily negative. International technological cooperation can generate substantial benefits. However, excessive dependency can create strategic vulnerability.

Evaluation should therefore consider:

ownership of intellectual property;

data location;

platform dependence;

vendor switching costs;

availability of alternative suppliers;

local technical capacity;

interoperability;

open standards;

licensing conditions; and

long-term supplier viability.

Vendor lock-in occurs when switching to an alternative provider becomes technically, financially, or institutionally difficult.

A technology evaluation should ask:

If the provider disappears, increases prices, changes its terms, or becomes unavailable, can the organization continue operating?

This is a strategic resilience question.

17.8 Local Capacity Building

Technology transfer should ideally include capacity development.

A technology project that imports hardware and software without developing local skills may create short-term capability without producing long-term technological independence.

Capacity building can include:

technical training;

management development;

research capacity;

local software development;

maintenance skills;

cybersecurity skills;

data science capability;

policy expertise;

academic-industry collaboration; and

institutional learning.

Technology evaluation should therefore assess whether a project strengthens local capabilities.

17.9 Technology and Human Capital

Human capital is a major determinant of technological outcomes.

The introduction of advanced technology can create demand for new skills while reducing demand for certain routine activities. Autor (2015) argues that technological change does not simply eliminate work; its effects depend on how tasks and human capabilities interact.

Developing economies therefore need to evaluate technology alongside education and skills development.

A technology investment may have greater developmental value when accompanied by:

vocational training;

university programmes;

professional certification;

research centres;

entrepreneurship programmes;

digital literacy initiatives; and

continuing professional development.

Technology policy should therefore be connected to education policy.

17.10 Appropriate Technology

The concept of appropriate technology emphasizes technological solutions that fit the social, economic, environmental, and institutional conditions of a particular community.

Appropriateness does not mean using inferior technology.

Rather, it means selecting technology according to purpose and context.

An appropriate technology should generally demonstrate:

functional adequacy;

affordability;

maintainability;

environmental compatibility;

cultural acceptability;

accessibility;

scalability; and

long-term sustainability.

The most advanced technology is not automatically the most appropriate technology.

17.11 Technology and Local Culture

Technology interacts with culture.

Users interpret, adapt, resist, modify, and sometimes repurpose technologies according to local expectations and practices. Technology adoption therefore cannot be understood entirely through technical specifications.

Cultural evaluation should examine:

language;

social norms;

professional practices;

religious and cultural expectations;

communication patterns;

perceptions of privacy;

attitudes toward automation;

trust in institutions; and

community participation.

A technology designed for one cultural context may require significant adaptation before implementation elsewhere.

17.12 Gender and Technology

Technology can expand opportunities for women while also reproducing existing inequalities.

Evaluation should therefore consider:

access to devices;

access to finance;

digital skills;

employment opportunities;

safety;

privacy;

representation in technology development;

algorithmic bias; and

access to leadership opportunities.

Technology evaluation should avoid assuming that benefits will automatically be distributed equally.

17.13 Technology and Rural Communities

Rural areas often face distinctive technological constraints.

These may include:

limited connectivity;

weak transportation;

lower population density;

limited technical support;

reduced access to finance;

fewer healthcare professionals;

fewer educational institutions; and

unreliable electricity.

However, technology can also be particularly valuable in rural areas.

Applications include:

telemedicine;

precision agriculture;

mobile banking;

digital education;

weather information;

renewable energy;

remote sensing;

digital marketplaces; and

mobile government services.

The appropriate evaluation question is therefore not whether rural communities are technologically ready in absolute terms, but whether technology can be adapted to their actual conditions.

17.14 Technology Evaluation and Poverty Reduction

Technology may contribute to poverty reduction through productivity, employment, financial inclusion, education, health, and access to markets.

However, technological investment can also bypass low-income populations.

Evaluation should therefore include distributional analysis:

Who benefits?

Who pays?

Who bears the risks?

Who controls the technology?

Who may be excluded?

This approach connects technology assessment with social justice and sustainable development.

17.15 Technology and Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals provide a useful contextual framework for technology evaluation (United Nations, 2015).

Technology can contribute to areas including:

poverty reduction;

health;

education;

gender equality;

clean water;

affordable energy;

decent work;

infrastructure;

reduced inequality;

sustainable cities;

climate action; and

responsible consumption.

However, technologies can affect several goals simultaneously.

For example, electric vehicles may contribute to emissions reduction while increasing demand for critical minerals. Digital education may increase educational access while creating electronic waste and requiring substantial connectivity infrastructure.

Technology evaluation should therefore consider interactions among development objectives rather than examining each technology in isolation.

17.16 Climate Vulnerability and Technology

Developing economies are often highly exposed to climate-related risks.

Technology evaluation should therefore include climate resilience.

Questions include:

Can the technology operate during extreme weather?

Is infrastructure vulnerable to flooding?

Can systems operate during power interruptions?

Can supply chains withstand disruption?

Are components available locally?

Can systems recover quickly after disasters?

Climate resilience should be treated as a technological performance criterion rather than merely an environmental concern.

17.17 Financing Technology

Financing conditions can substantially influence technology adoption.

Possible financing models include:

government funding;

development finance;

public-private partnerships;

commercial loans;

venture capital;

impact investment;

grants;

leasing;

subscription models; and

blended finance.

Technology evaluation should consider whether the financing model is sustainable.

A project that is financially viable only while external grants continue may not represent sustainable adoption.

17.18 Technology Evaluation in Universities in Developing Economies

Universities have an important role in technological development.

They can function as:

users of technology;

producers of research;

developers of innovation;

trainers of skilled personnel;

evaluators of technology;

incubators of entrepreneurship; and

partners in national development.

Technology evaluation in universities should therefore consider both institutional utility and national capability development.

Universities should also evaluate technologies used in:

teaching;

research;

doctoral supervision;

assessment;

administration;

libraries;

student services;

academic integrity;

data management; and

institutional quality assurance.

17.19 Case Study: Digital Higher Education in a Developing Economy

Consider a university introducing an AI-supported learning platform.

Technical evaluation may show high functionality.

Economic evaluation may indicate acceptable licensing costs.

However, further analysis identifies several contextual issues:

some students have limited internet access;

faculty require training;

the platform stores data overseas;

the system does not support all local languages;

students with disabilities experience accessibility problems;

the university lacks an internal AI governance policy.

The technology may therefore be technically effective but institutionally unready.

AMTEF requires the university to consider all dimensions before large-scale implementation.

17.20 Developing-Economy Technology Evaluation Matrix

Table 17.2 — AMTEF Development Context Matrix

17.21 Research Questions for Chapter 17

How does national infrastructure influence technology evaluation?

How can technology evaluation incorporate development priorities?

What role does local capacity play in technology sustainability?

How should digital inequality be incorporated into technology evaluation?

How can developing economies reduce harmful technological dependency?

How should technology evaluation address climate vulnerability?

What evaluation models are most appropriate for resource-constrained environments?

How can universities contribute to national technology evaluation capacity?

17.22 Chapter Summary

Technology evaluation in developing and emerging economies requires a contextual approach that recognizes the significant differences between countries, regions, institutions, communities and individual users. Technologies that demonstrate strong performance in highly developed environments cannot automatically be assumed to produce equivalent outcomes when transferred to settings with different infrastructure, financial resources, institutional capabilities, cultural expectations, regulatory environments or patterns of technology use. Technology evaluation must therefore move beyond the question of whether a technology is technically capable and examine whether it is appropriate, affordable, accessible, sustainable and institutionally manageable within the environment in which it is intended to operate.

Infrastructure represents one of the most important contextual factors. Reliable electricity, telecommunications networks, broadband connectivity, transportation systems, cloud infrastructure, data centres and physical facilities can determine whether a technology can function effectively. A technology may perform exceptionally well under controlled conditions while producing limited value when electricity supply is unreliable, internet connectivity is intermittent or supporting infrastructure is unavailable. Consequently, technology evaluation should examine the infrastructure required not only for initial deployment but also for long-term operation, maintenance and expansion.

Affordability is another central consideration. The acquisition price of a technology represents only one part of its economic implications. Institutions and users may also incur expenses associated with installation, connectivity, training, maintenance, software licensing, cybersecurity, upgrades, technical support, replacement and eventual disposal. A technology that appears inexpensive at the point of purchase may become costly over its lifecycle. Conversely, a technology with a higher initial investment may produce greater long-term value if it is durable, maintainable and adaptable to local conditions. Technology evaluation should therefore consider total cost of ownership, financing arrangements and the capacity of users and institutions to sustain the technology over time.

Human capability is equally important. Technology requires people who can operate, maintain, interpret and govern it. Digital literacy, technical competence, management capability, research skills, cybersecurity awareness and professional training can substantially influence outcomes. Where skills are limited, technology adoption may produce underutilization, inappropriate use, system dependence or excessive reliance on external technical providers. Capacity development should therefore be regarded as part of the technology investment rather than as an optional activity following implementation.

Institutional capacity is closely connected to human capability. Universities, governments, businesses, healthcare organizations and other institutions require appropriate leadership, governance structures, policies, financial systems, procurement procedures and technical support mechanisms to manage technology effectively. An institution may acquire sophisticated technology without possessing the organizational capacity necessary to integrate it into existing processes. Technology evaluation should therefore determine whether the receiving organization is ready to adopt, operate, monitor and continuously improve the technology.

Digital inclusion represents another major dimension. Technology can expand access to education, healthcare, finance, public services and employment opportunities, but it can also reinforce existing inequalities when access is uneven. Differences in device ownership, connectivity, affordability, digital literacy, disability access, language, geography and socioeconomic circumstances can produce significantly different experiences among users. Evaluation should therefore consider not only average outcomes but also how benefits and burdens are distributed across different population groups.

Local culture and social context must also be taken seriously. Technologies are introduced into societies with existing values, traditions, languages, professional practices and social relationships. A technology designed around assumptions from one cultural environment may not function in the same way elsewhere. User acceptance, trust, communication patterns, authority structures and perceptions of privacy may differ substantially between communities. Effective evaluation therefore requires meaningful engagement with local stakeholders rather than assuming that technological designs are universally transferable.

Language represents a particularly important aspect of contextual appropriateness. Technologies based primarily on a limited number of dominant languages may create barriers for populations whose preferred languages are different. This is especially relevant to education, healthcare, public administration and artificial intelligence. Technology evaluation should consider whether users can understand interfaces, instructions, warnings, educational content and automated outputs. Linguistic accessibility is therefore part of both usability and equity.

Environmental vulnerability also affects technology outcomes. Developing and emerging economies may experience substantial exposure to flooding, drought, extreme heat, storms, water scarcity, coastal change and other environmental pressures. Technologies that depend upon fragile infrastructure may be particularly vulnerable under such conditions. Conversely, appropriate technologies can contribute to climate adaptation, resilient infrastructure, sustainable agriculture, distributed energy systems, water management and disaster preparedness. Environmental evaluation should therefore consider both the environmental footprint of a technology and its capacity to function under changing environmental conditions.

Financing represents another critical dimension. Technology projects frequently require substantial upfront investment, while benefits may emerge gradually over time. Governments and institutions may depend on public funding, development finance, private investment, international assistance, loans or public-private partnerships. Technology evaluation should examine the sustainability of these financing arrangements and consider whether long-term operating costs can realistically be supported after the initial project or external funding period ends.

Technological dependency is an additional issue that deserves careful attention. Countries and institutions may become dependent on foreign vendors, proprietary platforms, imported hardware, external technical expertise or overseas cloud infrastructure. Such dependency is not necessarily negative, because international technology providers can provide valuable capabilities and investment. However, excessive dependence may create vulnerabilities relating to cost, data control, technical support, supply chains, geopolitical developments and the ability to modify or replace systems. Technology evaluation should therefore consider interoperability, local capacity, data sovereignty where relevant, technology transfer and exit options.

Supply-chain resilience is particularly important for technologies that depend upon imported hardware, critical minerals, specialized components or proprietary software. Disruptions in global supply chains can affect availability, prices, maintenance and replacement. Developing and emerging economies may be particularly exposed when local manufacturing or repair capabilities are limited. Lifecycle evaluation should therefore examine the availability of replacement parts, maintenance expertise and alternative suppliers.

Maintenance and repairability should receive greater attention than they often receive during initial procurement. A technology may function effectively immediately after installation but deteriorate rapidly when maintenance resources are unavailable. Systems designed for local repair, modular replacement and readily available components may have different long-term economic and environmental characteristics from systems that require specialized external intervention. Technology evaluation should therefore consider maintainability and repair capacity as part of sustainability.

Technology transfer and local capability development can significantly influence long-term outcomes. Where technology adoption includes training, knowledge transfer, local research capacity and development of technical expertise, institutions may become increasingly capable of managing the technology independently. Where technology is implemented as a closed external service with limited local knowledge transfer, dependency may persist. Evaluation should therefore consider whether an intervention contributes to the development of local human and institutional capabilities.

Governance is another essential dimension. Technologies can affect public services, personal information, economic activity, education, healthcare and social relationships. Appropriate policies, regulatory arrangements, accountability mechanisms and institutional responsibilities are therefore necessary. Weak governance can increase risks associated with privacy, cybersecurity, corruption, procurement, misuse and unequal access. Technology evaluation should consequently examine not only whether a system works but also whether appropriate structures exist to govern its use.

Trust is closely connected to governance. Users are more likely to engage meaningfully with technologies when they understand how systems operate, how their information is used and what protections exist. Lack of trust may result from previous technology failures, poor communication, privacy concerns or perceptions that technology is being imposed without adequate consultation. Stakeholder engagement and transparent communication should therefore form part of technology implementation and evaluation.

The distinction between adoption and effective use is particularly important in developing and emerging economies. A government, university or organization may formally adopt a technology while actual use remains limited. This can occur because users lack skills, infrastructure is inadequate, the system does not fit existing workflows, incentives are weak or the technology does not address the underlying problem. Technology evaluation should therefore examine actual utilization and outcomes rather than treating procurement or installation as evidence of success.

Technology should also be evaluated against alternatives. The relevant question is not always whether a particular technology works, but whether it represents an appropriate response compared with other technological, organizational or non-technological options. In some circumstances, a simpler and more locally maintainable solution may provide greater practical value than a highly sophisticated system. In other circumstances, advanced technology may be justified because it provides capabilities that simpler alternatives cannot provide. Comparative evaluation should therefore consider effectiveness, cost, sustainability, scalability, risk and local capacity.

Scalability is particularly important. A pilot project may function successfully in one institution, city or community without being easily transferable to a national or regional level. Scaling may introduce new infrastructure requirements, training needs, governance challenges and financial costs. Technology evaluation should therefore distinguish between pilot feasibility and large-scale sustainability. Evidence from small-scale implementation should not automatically be generalized to an entire population.

The role of unintended consequences must also be recognized. Technologies may generate benefits that were not initially anticipated, but they can also create new problems. Automation may improve efficiency while reducing certain employment opportunities. Digital services may expand access while excluding people without connectivity. AI may increase productivity while creating new risks concerning inaccurate information and privacy. A comprehensive technology evaluation should therefore examine both intended and unintended effects.

Sustainability should be understood in a broad sense. Economic sustainability concerns whether the technology can be financed and maintained. Environmental sustainability concerns resource use, emissions, waste and ecological effects. Social sustainability concerns inclusion, wellbeing and distribution of benefits and burdens. Institutional sustainability concerns whether organizations can continue operating and governing the technology. A technology should therefore be considered across its entire lifecycle rather than only at the point of acquisition.

The AMTEF perspective is particularly relevant because technology evaluation in developing and emerging economies cannot be reduced to a single performance indicator. Technical performance, economic feasibility, human capability, environmental consequences, social inclusion, institutional readiness, governance, security, ethical considerations and long-term sustainability interact with one another. A technically successful intervention may fail economically; an economically affordable technology may be difficult to maintain; a technically reliable system may be socially inappropriate; and a socially beneficial innovation may become unsustainable if financing cannot be maintained.

Evidence must also be interpreted within context. Data generated in one country, institution or population may not automatically represent conditions elsewhere. Researchers and decision-makers should therefore consider the source, population, timeframe, methodology and contextual assumptions underlying evidence. Local evidence is particularly valuable when evaluating questions concerning affordability, accessibility, user behaviour, institutional capacity and cultural appropriateness.

Technology evaluation should consequently become an iterative process. Initial assessment should occur before adoption, but evaluation should continue during implementation and operation. Evidence from actual use can reveal problems that were not visible during procurement or pilot testing. Institutions should therefore measure performance, gather stakeholder feedback, identify unintended consequences, modify implementation arrangements and reassess the technology periodically.

The ultimate purpose of technology evaluation is not to determine whether technology is inherently good or bad. Technology is a means through which particular objectives are pursued. Its value depends on the relationship between technological capability, human capability, institutional capacity, resources, context and intended outcomes. The same technology may produce substantially different results in different environments because the conditions surrounding its use are different.

The central lesson of this chapter is therefore that technology should not be evaluated only according to what it can do. It should also be evaluated according to what individuals, organizations, communities and governments can realistically do with it. A technology may possess extensive technical capabilities while producing limited practical value if users cannot afford it, institutions cannot maintain it, infrastructure cannot support it, regulations cannot govern it, or communities cannot use it effectively.

Responsible technology evaluation therefore requires a shift from technology-centred thinking toward context-centred and human-centred evaluation. The fundamental question becomes not simply whether a technology is advanced, efficient or innovative, but whether it is appropriate to the problem, feasible within the available resources, accessible to intended users, compatible with institutional capacity, sustainable over time and capable of producing meaningful benefits without creating unacceptable risks.

For developing and emerging economies, this perspective is especially important because technology can represent both an opportunity for accelerated development and a potential source of new dependency or inequality. Appropriate technologies can expand access to education, healthcare, financial services, energy, communication, scientific knowledge and economic opportunity. Poorly evaluated technologies can generate financial burdens, exclusion, technological dependency, privacy risks, environmental pressures and institutional challenges.

A mature technology evaluation framework must therefore recognize context as a fundamental component of evidence. Infrastructure, affordability, skills, institutional capacity, digital inclusion, local culture, environmental vulnerability, financing, governance, security and technological dependency should be incorporated into the evaluation process from the beginning. The objective is not to prevent technological innovation but to ensure that innovation is connected to genuine needs, realistic capabilities and sustainable development.

In this sense, technology evaluation becomes both an analytical and developmental activity. It helps decision-makers understand not only whether a technology can be implemented, but also what capabilities must be developed around it for implementation to become successful. Technology adoption may therefore require simultaneous investment in people, institutions, infrastructure, governance and knowledge.

The broader AMTEF principle can consequently be expressed as follows: technology capability must be evaluated together with human capability, institutional readiness, contextual suitability, evidence quality, governance, sustainability and social impact. When these dimensions are considered together, technology evaluation becomes a means of improving the quality of technological decisions rather than merely selecting technological products.

Ultimately, the success of technology in developing and emerging economies should be understood through the outcomes it produces in real contexts. A technology becomes meaningful when it contributes to genuine educational, economic, social, environmental, institutional or developmental objectives. The most important question is therefore not simply whether a society can acquire a technology, but whether it can use, govern, maintain, adapt and sustain that technology in ways that create durable value for people and institutions.