Human resource development through infrastructure

Our conventional belief has been that academic institutions would develop human resources, and government and industry would be readily using them for infrastructure development and other purposes. If the needed human resource is not locally available to get state-of-the-art infrastructure, the policy is to offer contracts to foreign firms to deploy proven solutions. As a result, locally produced graduates do not get a chance to upgrade their competence in designing and constructing high-end infrastructure, let alone succeeding in assimilating foreign technologies and advancing them further. If we continue this policy, in which direction will we be heading? Have advanced or newly advanced countries been following such a policy? Is it time for us to look for alternatives for leveraging the infrastructure development agenda to advance our human resources? 

Like a low-income family having growing children, once an economically poor nation generates some revenue out of labour-centric work. Based on projected income from the labour trade of a large youth population, creditors also show interest in lending for expanding the infrastructure beyond current means. As a result, along with better infrastructure, the debt burden starts growing. Besides, the tendency to show quick results ends up giving contracts to foreign suppliers, often lenders, to import major infrastructure modules like metro rail, satellite, large bridges, tunnels, power plants, telecom networks, data centers, nuclear reactors, and elevated expressways.

Of course, newly developed infrastructure facilitates physical movement, material transport, energy supply, and many more. But how far such infrastructure projects are leveraged in developing human resources for domestically improving and producing them for meeting local demand and exporting? As leveraging such an opportunity in developing human resources does not have an immediate effect on economic data, the urgency of showing rapid GDP growth does not find strong reason. Furthermore, as local expertise does not exist, the argument of importing gets more momentum in favour of import citing the argument-don't reinvent the wheel. But in the long run, does such an approach of importing infrastructure, increasing debt, and missing the opportunity of human resource development seed the foundation of growth? Or, is it a recipe for getting a country trapped in debt and keeping potential human resources unempowered? Let's draw lessons from others. 

Canada: Here are three examples from Canada. The first one is about Canada's need for earth observation satellites for surveying and monitoring its large geography. As a next-door neighbour, the USA was the global leader in designing, fabricating, and launching satellites, the easy solution could have been giving contracts to US firms. Of course, Canada took advantage of its neighbour's strength. But instead of just being a buyer of the USA's technologies, Canada focused on adding value to designing, building, and operating satellites, and innovating satellite data products. As a result, along with serving domestic demand, Canada's homegrown company MDA has become a dominant global player, making the USA's defence a major customer. In its maiden satellite ownership programme, Bangladesh could have followed this path in empowering the Bangladesh Space Research and Remote Sensing Organisation (SPARRSO) and patronising local firms. Instead of being proud of being a buyer, Bangladesh could have opted to design and build some modules of the satellite. As a result, Bangladesh could have leveraged this communication infrastructure development exercise to advance human resource capability. 

In the 1990s, Canada constructed a 12.8 km bridge over the Atlantic Ocean, connecting its two eastern provinces. Instead of deploying proven technologies, Canada focused on advancing the state-of-the-art. The country did so by sponsoring a series of M.Sc and Ph.D level research activities in several Canadian universities. Furthermore, homegrown bridge design and construction firms were linked with this academic research to support the knowledge generation of what they needed to design and build the bridge to cope with unique icy harsh situations. In building a bridge over the Jamuna bridge, Bangladesh could have actively engaged academic institutions and local civil engineering firms to develop human resources. Consequently, Bangladesh could have succeeded in designing and building the Padma Bridge with its engineering expertise. 

To sustain the competitiveness of underground mining, Canada needed telerobotics for human-free mining operations. To meet this requirement, Canada could have opted to use their mining proceeds to recruit foreign firms to deploy readily available technologies. However, Canada opted for a technology transfer, adaptation, and advancement programme through academia-industry collaborative research. To upgrade technology infrastructure like switching from gasoline automobiles to electric vehicles, Bangladesh could have opted similar option-empowering human resources to create the path of building new industries out of knowledge and ideas. 

China: Once revenue from labour commercialisation started, China also focused on building infrastructure-- from roads, bridges, and metro to bullet trains. But like Bangladesh, did China fully rely on contracting out all the infrastructure mega projects to foreign firms? The obvious answer is: NO. Instead, China focused not only on absorbing foreign technologies but also on improving them further. Hence, its journey of building a high-speed rail network has resulted in innovating bullet trains, showing higher speeds than world acclaimed Japan's Shinkansen. There have been many such examples in China. 

Yes, academic institutions have the mandate to produce human resources. But irrespective of the strength of curricula, library, laboratory, and faculty pool, and intellectual capability of students, undergraduate programmes are capable of producing only raw graduates. We need to empower them further by exposing them to designing and building state-of-the-art infrastructure and engaging universities in R&D to advance them further. Consequently, we will succeed in leveraging the knowledge and idea creation capability of locally-produced graduates to open and fuel the next wave of growth. 

As Bangladesh is in the early stage of development, should it spend its labour-earned proceeds to recruit foreign firms to develop infrastructure? By drawing lessons from advanced nations, should Bangladesh not engage its graduates, academic institutions, and local firms to assimilate infrastructure-related advanced technologies so that they can build similar or better facilities in the future? With the given reality, Bangladesh must change policies in favour of engaging its graduates to design, build, and advance infrastructure, in partnership with foreign experts. Unless such change takes place, Bangladesh runs a serious risk of not being eligible to pursue the next wave of growth, to be fueled by the domestic production of knowledge and ideas and their commercialisation in the global market. 

Rokonuzzaman, Ph.D is academic and researcher on technology, innovation, and policy.
Zaman.rokon.bd@gmail.com