Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

Ergonomics in industrially developing countries: does its application

di!er from that in industrially advanced countries?
D.H. O'Neill*
International Development Group, Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe MK45 4HS, UK
Received 16 July 1999; received in revised form 6 June 2000; accepted 3 July 2000

Abstract

Demographic characteristics of industrially developing countries (IDCs) and some comparisons with industrially advanced
countries (IACs), particularly those aspects relevant to ergonomics, are presented. The majority of IDC populations are engaged in
subsistence agriculture (the `informala sector) and consideration is given to the scope for ergonomics interventions, aimed primarily at
raising productivity to alleviate the poverty su!ered by rural families. Ergonomics issues prevalent in the `formala sector are also
discussed and the importance of "nding simple, low-cost solutions through participatory approaches emphasised. The possible
contributions of ergonomics to alleviating problems common to both sectors, such as transport, are also indicated and attention is
drawn to the di$culties of applying formal standards. The improvement of living and working conditions from incorporating an
ergonomics approach into the sustainable livelihoods model, by enhancing human capital, is described in the context of the other
livelihood assets. This demonstrates the importance of the cultural dimension for the successful delivery of ergonomics bene"ts. The
application of ergonomics di!ers between IDCs and IACs particularly through the limited infrastructure in IDCs to support
ergonomics activity and interventions. This broaches the di!erent contributions that can be made by ergonomics and occupational
health practitioners and implies the need for closer collaboration between these professions.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.

Keywords: Developing countries; Agriculture; Technology transfer; Occupational health and safety; Cultural factors; Livelihoods

1. Introduction as to obtain maximum satisfaction for the worker which,

The terms `ergonomicsa and `industrially developing
countriesa both represent enormous diversity in view
point. My favourite de"nition of ergonomics * `the
scienti"c study of human worka * as given by Pheasant
(1991) almost de"es the imposition of boundaries because
the concept of work is so broad. This embraces all aspects
of human endeavour from #ying jumbo-jets, to enhanc-
ing the performance of professional athletes, to surviving
on subsistence agriculture. A more rigorous, yet easily
assimilable, de"nition of ergonomics remains elusive.
Around ten years ago Ong and Kogi (1992) quoted the
ILO de"nition of ergonomics as `the application of hu-
man biological sciences in conjunction with engineering
sciences to the worker and his working environment, so
at the same time, enhances productivitya. De"ning ergo-
nomics has remained the subject of considerable
attention and, recently, the International Ergonomics
Association (IEA) has published, for comment, this draft
de"nition (Anon, 2000). `Ergonomics is the discipline
concerned with the fundamental understanding of inter-
actions among human and other elements of a systema. It
continues `Ergonomists contribute to the design of tasks,
jobs, products and environments in order to make them
compatible with the needs, abilities and limitations of
peoplea. However, the de"nition on the home-page of the
IEA website * `Ergonomics is the scienti"c discipline
concerned with interactions among humans and other
elements of a system in carrying out a purposeful
activitya * is crisper and probably the better suited for
IDCs.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: #1-44-1525-860-000; fax: #1-44-

1525-860-156.
E-mail address: dave.oneill@bbsrc.ac.uk (D.H. O' Neill).  http://ergonomics-iea.org/iea/main.html.

0003-6870/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - 8
632 D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

The term `industrially developing countriesa (IDCs) Table 1

may imply a simple concept but, in practice, refers to World population characteristics (from Spedding, 1996)
highly heterogeneous arrays of cultures, availability of
Population Growth rate (% per year)
resources and levels of infrastructure. On the one hand, (millions)
there exist well-developed social structures, usually based
on a bountiful supply of natural resources (e.g. as in parts 1988 1950}75 1975}88
of south-east Asia), which may, in itself, parry the need Developed nations 1235 1.13 0.73
for industrialisation. On the other hand, there exist more Developing nations 3880 2.33 2.09
Total 5115 1.96 1.74
austere societies where the culture is focussed more on
survival in habitats of limited natural resources, such as
the arid zones of the Sahel. A widely acknowledged
characteristic of most IDCs is a high population growth Table 2
rate (see Table 1) which, in most cases, overburdens the Population engaged in agriculture and income, according to economic
category (from Spedding, 1996)
inadequate infrastructure (e.g. health, education services)
and exacerbates unemployment problems. Economic category Percent of labour force GNP per
The majority of the world's population resides in IDCs in agriculture head ($)
and still gain their livelihoods from rural pursuits, despite
the increasing trend of urban migration. Statistics quoted Lower income 71 270
Lower-middle income 59 750
by Spedding (1996) indicate that of the world population Middle-upper income 29 1890
of 5.1 billion people, 2.3 billion are economically active Industrial market economies 7 12960
and 1.1 billion (48%) of these are economically active in
agriculture. These data can be expressed according to
economic category, as shown in Table 2 (also taken from Table 3
Spedding, 1996). Di!erences between IDCs and IACs (from Spedding, 1996)
Considering broader perspectives, some contrasting IDCs IACs
attributes of IDCs and industrially advanced countries
(IACs) are shown in Table 3 (from Spedding, 1996) and Underproduction Overproduction
in Table 4 (from North, 1987), with a focus on the Low yields High yields
ergonomics aspects. Starvation Overeating
Low body weight Obesity
In undertaking this review, in which it is possible to do Poverty A%uence
no more than describe super"cially some selected prob- Crop product consumption Meat consumption
lems of IDCs, the question is posed `Is the application of Muscle powered (animal Oil powered
ergonomics in the context of IDCs conceptually or prac- and human)
tically di!erent from that in IACs?a In the subsequent High percentage of young people High percentage of old people
79% of population rural 22% of population rural
sections, attention is drawn to the ergonomics problems Poor hygiene Good hygiene
in the various sectors of IDCs, and how they may be Contaminated water Clean water
resolved, in order to answer this question. The motiva- Poor control (over conditions) Good control (over conditions)
tion is the hope that through this, ergonomics, inter alia, Food processed at home Most food industrially processed
will play its distinct role in reducing world poverty and Poor infrastructure Good infrastructure
improving the quality of life of the most disadvantaged
people on the planet.
The de"nition of absolute poverty is widely accepted Table 4
as having to survive on less than 1 $(US) a day (e.g. see Ergonomics di!erences between IDCs and IACs (from North, 1987)
Winkelmann, 1998): reference to Table 2 shows that this
IDCs IACs
embraces at least 71% of the IDC population, most of
whom rely on subsistence agriculture for their liveli- Prevalence of agriculture and Prevalence of manufacturing indus-
hoods. Increased agricultural productivity has been re- primary industry try and service sector
cognised as a major (but not the only) means of De"nition of work task by the Clearly de"ned work tasks, ration-
combatting poverty, as one dollar extra income in agri- individual alised work
Close contact between consumer Mass production: little contact be-
culture gives rise to 50 cents of extra income in the rest of and manufacturer tween consumer and manufacturer
Wide range of technology, Homogeneous level of technology,
productivity and working productivity and working condi-
conditions tions
 Wisner (e.g. see Wisner, 1985) coined the term IDC in cognisance of Lack of contact with technology Workers familiar with technology
the fact that many of these countries have a developed civilisation, since childhood
although not based on commerce and the mass production of capital Work for subsistence Work for social identi"cation
goods.
 D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640 633

the economy (Winkelmann, 1998, quoting Haggblade

et al., 1991).

2. Agriculture

Three types of agriculture co-exist in most IDCs

* plantations, conventional commercial agriculture and
smallholder crop (and often livestock) farming. The stat-
istics presented above suggest that the smallholder sec-
tor, where enterprises are run on a family basis, should
receive priority attention, as this is the main occupation
in IDCs. Furthermore, the quality of life found in IACs
has generally evolved through the establishment of in-
dustrially based economies which have grown out of
a robust small-scale agricultural sector.
A strong smallholder sector relies on successful com-
pletion of the cycle of production tasks by means of
a process that is sustainable. For smallholders, the grow-
ing of crops*staples, vegetables or cash-crops*is more
demanding than the management of livestock, which is
often undertaken as a means of holding wealth, where the
products (or outputs) provide spin-o! bene"ts. Crop pro-
duction involves a sequence of distinct operations, be-
tween which there may be interactions, comprising land
preparation, planting, crop care (i.e. control of pests, such Fig. 1. Land preparation in subsistence agriculture.
as weeds and insects) and harvesting. The main interac-
tions arise from the e!ects of land preparation on weed-
ing, where, in general, better land preparation reduces the and manually powered equipment, so the main means of
weeding demand. For most smallholder farming families, protection is by clothing, rather than by vehicle cabs as in
post-harvest processing and storage are also essential IACs. In the hot environments of IDCs, adequate protec-
operations. tive clothing adds to the heat stress of the operators,
The greatest constraints on crop production are land which is compounded by the metabolic heat load of using
preparation and weeding (e.g. see Fig. 1). The former the equipment. The challenge is to identify suitable cloth-
constraints are due to the energy requirement, and hence ing which provides a good compromise between protec-
power demand as time is usually a limiting factor, and the tion and thermal acceptability and, most importantly,
latter because of the labourious, time-consuming nature which is a!ordable. Added to this is the need to explain
of the work (Rogan and O'Neill, 1993). The fact that why protection is needed and to motivate farmers to
there is such a strong interaction between the two brings protect themselves. The safe storage and disposal of used
ergonomics considerations to the fore. Shahnavaz (1983) chemicals are also issues, with which ergonomics should
commented that working and non-working conditions in be involved through the presentation of comprehensible
IDCs are so inter-related that they may be considered as and assimilable information.
an undivided totality. More research and development is Accidents and injuries are a serious concern in all types
needed to optimise crop productivity in terms of the of agriculture and their prevention should be a signi"cant
"nancial, labour and energy (whether human, animal ergonomics issue. There are also economic implications
or engine powered * or some combination) inputs for as discussed by McNeill and O'Neill (1998), who costed
di!erent farming systems within the whole livelihood the loss of earnings of agricultural workers in Ghana
perspective. according to the nature of their injuries. The commonest
Other aspects of agricultural production which war- injury was a cutlass wound, resulting in an average of just
rant ergonomics attention include crop care: the applica- under 10 working days lost (equivalent to about 6 US$);
tion of chemicals * as fertilisers or pesticides * so as to the most severe, although relatively uncommon, was in-
protect the health of both the operator and the environ- jury due to gunshot wounds, causing an average of 60
ment (Rainbird and O'Neill, 1995). This applies to IACs days lost work (at a cost of around 33$).
also but the nature of the problem in IDCs di!ers mainly In IACs some control of health and safety risks is
in the type of personal protection required. In IDCs, exerted through legislation but in IDCs legislation, where
chemicals are generally applied by hand or hand-held it exists, is ine!ective. Appropriate ergonomics in the
634 D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

IDCs the supply of able-bodied people is diminishing

because of the AIDS pandemic.
There is now an increasing number of examples of
ergonomics interventions in other agricultural or domes-
tic operations where performance or health and safety
have been improved. Such examples include hoe design
(Manuaba and Nala, 1969), pesticide application
(Ghugare et al., 1991), handling of animal-drawn equip-
ment (O'Neill, 1997), cooking equipment (Igbeka, 1993),
charcoal production (Jafry and O'Neill, 1997) and har-
vesting grass fodder (O'Neill, 1997).
The levels of energy expenditure in agriculture are
high, as it is a labour-intensive occupation. This is also
true of agriculture in IACs, but in IDCs fewer operations
are mechanised as there is less opportunity for engines
(powered by fossil fuels) to replace manual equipment.
Another di!erence between IDCs and IACs is that most
of the agricultural operations (with the possible excep-
Fig. 2. The economic cycle of diseases. tion of land preparation) are carried out by women which
means that the physical stress of doing the work is
proportionately greater. An indication of this problem is
design of equipment and the development of work practi- evident in Table 5 taken from Nag and Chatterjee's
ces can help overcome this. Economic development is (1981) study of 8 female agricultural workers in eastern
constrained by a combination of circumstances that may India.
be succinctly described by the `economic cycle of dis- This situation is exacerbated by women having
easesa as shown in Fig. 2 (after FAO, 1992). to carry out their domestic duties in addition to their
This is particularly relevant to smallholder farming agricultural tasks.
families in IDCs because the poverty, i.e. `low salariesa, is
so overwhelming. This cycle can be broken only by
strong interventions at the arrows. Clearly, government 3. Factories and mines
hand-outs to improve education or health are options
and are being pursued, but the scale of need on a national These di!er from the agricultural sector in that formal
basis in most IDCs renders such interventions relatively employment is far more common, but heavy manual
ine!ective. There would seem to be scope for ergonomics work still predominates and, furthermore, the labour
to intervene between `low working capacitya and `low force may often be regarded as expendable. The main
productiona to convert the `low productiona into `mod- areas of industrial enterprise in IDCs are textiles, chem-
erate productiona. If this then results in slightly higher icals (including petrochemicals), steel, food, building/con-
incomes, nutrition and the associated factors might also struction and ports/docks. The principal ergonomics
improve. Such an intervention would be based on en- concerns, at present, are oriented towards the fairly
abling the low capacity worker to better apply his/her strongly interrelated issues of physical workload, phys-
strength, skills and abilities, through improved equip- ical environment, equipment design and health and
ment and working methods, thereby increasing produc- safety. Teniswood (1987) cited a number of examples in
tivity and output. A prime example, considering the
above discussion, would be higher crop production Table 5
Energy costs of various agricultural activities (from Nag and Chatter-
through improved land preparation and weeding jee, 1981)
methods and equipment. Examples where these are being
achieved in practice include improved hoes designed spe- Activity Energy HR (/min) %V O


ci"cally for tillage or for weeding, adoption of draught (kJ/min)
animal power to reduce work intensity and drudgery,
Standing 4.1 87 13.8
and di!erent crop establishment techniques to make the Walking 11.5 115 28.8
tillage and weeding demands more equitable. The use of Digging (dry soil) 19.5 144 48.9
engine-powered equipment to displace labour has been Transplanting paddy 12.3 126 31.1
questioned in societies or communities where there may Weeding/sickle/sitting 11.5 112 29.5
appear to be an abundance of manual labour, but such Weeding/sickle/bending 14.5 124 33.3
Harvesting paddy (sitting) 12.2 115 30.6
a solution would be advocated only to avoid bottle-necks Harvesting paddy (bending) 12.8 119 32.4
during periods of peak demand. Furthermore, in many
 D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640
these areas where ergonomics has been applied success-
fully to improve working conditions and productivity.
He concluded that the practice of ergonomics was essen-
tially the same as in IACs but relevant anthropometric
data were often lacking and that only `simplea solutions
were likely to be adopted. Kogi, in his many publications
(e.g. see Kogi, 1985, 1997; Kogi and Sen, 1987; Kogi et al.,
1998) makes the point repeatedly that solutions must,
above all, be simple and reached through a participatory
process. Low cost is also important but the cost may be
negotiable with factory managers if economic returns are
obvious and quick. Designing work stations to accom-
modate working postures that may be regarded as un-
conventional in IACs, such as the squatting so popular in
south east Asia, is an application of ergonomics speci"c
to IDCs. The solutions are unlikely to be found in IAC
texts (e.g. see Gurr et al., 1998) but would still employ the
same principles of designing within appropriate reach
and force envelopes. Although Sen (1984), for example,
argues for work stations designed to facilitate squatting,
there is evidence to discourage this practice, especially in
engineering factories where the cleanliness of machined
parts is essential for the proper functioning of the result-
ing assemblies (e.g. axles, gearboxes, etc.). Despite the
lack of appropriate anthropometric data cited above and
frequently mentioned elsewhere, many, if not the major-
ity, of ergonomics publications emanating from IDCs
have been devoted to this topic.
One exception is the study by Ahasan et al. (1999) of
metal-workers in Bangladesh. Stresses caused by thermal
factors (heat and humidity), poor air quality (inorganic
dusts, welding fumes), awkward body postures and noise
were found. They were identi"ed through a comprehens-
ive ergonomics approach encompassing classi"cation of
jobs and integrating cultural and socio-economic factors.
Although simple, low-cost, practical solutions were ad-
vocated as the best way of overcoming these problems,
the constraints that they listed would be daunting for any
ergonomists who wish to put in place low-cost interven-
tions to improve working conditions. These constraints,
many of which are interrelated, included (i) negative
attitudes and the acceptance of unsafe practices, (ii) poor
access to information and training, (iii) the poverty cycle
(low wages, poor nutrition, etc. * see Fig. 2), (iv) weak
trades unions and corruption and (v) lack of support
from the international community. Similar "ndings have
been reported by Mbakaya et al. (1999) in Kenya. Ac-
cording to Asogwa (1987), based on his experiences in
Nigeria, the seriousness of workplace injuries is growing
at a greater rate in IDCs than in IACs. He advocates
three approaches to counter this (i) a positive attitude to
health and safety towards hazard elimination, (ii) nation-
al e!orts to improve legislation and enforcement and (iii)
greater international cooperation.
Thermal stress is likely to be an even greater problem
in factories and mines than it is in agriculture. The
635
appropriateness of the relevant International Standards
to certain IDC situations is now being questioned (e.g.
see Yoopat et al., 1998; McNeill and Parsons, 1999).
Again, this seems to be a matter of accounting for the
characteristics of the population, rather than a rejection
of the basic ergonomics principles.
The transfer of technologies, equipment and even pro-
duction lines raises many ergonomics issues which, un-
fortunately, are often overlooked. These technological
`packagesa must be checked not only for their physical
suitability (anthropometrics, biomechanics) but also for
their conceptual and cognitive attributes, particularly
regarding population stereotypes. These include the in-
formation implied by switch or lever position (e.g. up for
o!) or conveyed by colour (e.g. red for danger). Many of
these are evident from knowledge of the culture and do
not necessarily need experimentation. Care must be
taken to accommodate other cultural or religious factors
which may be of no signi"cance in IACs, or the country
from which the technology originates. The training needs
associated with the transfer of technology are often over-
looked: this would not occur if ergonomics were part of
the transfer package. Furthermore, any training (or re-
training) programme should incorporate ergonomics
principles.
4. Cross-cutting issues
There are several issues with signi"cant ergonomics
implications in IDCs which cut across all aspects of
working and living. The most prominent of these are
manual handling, transport, occupational safety and
health and, as a consequence, (international) standards.
Transport a!ects people whether they are passengers
(Manuaba, 1979) or transporters but the situation de-
manding the greatest ergonomics attention is where
people are transporters. This implicates the other issues
of manual handling and health and safety. One of the
biggest contrasts between IDCs and IACs is the amount
of material that is shifted by human e!ort, whether in
factories, construction or in the rural (`informala) sector.
Manual handling in response to the transport need is the
cause of many injuries and much long-term su!ering.
There is greater potential for control in the `formala
sector, and some progress is being made through the
application of standards, but the informal sector remains
almost impervious to such considerations. Apart from
the obvious practical di$culties of disseminating the
principles of `good practicea and of enforcing legislation,
the demands are overwhelming and families existing at
the subsistence level just do not have the luxury of
adopting alternative practices. Crops must be trans-
ported from the "elds after harvest and then the fraction
that is to be sold (to provide desperately needed cash) has
to be taken to market. The prevalent mode of transport is
636 D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640
headloading and, generally, this is done by women. Typi-
cally, carrying crops to market would involve carrying up
to 25 kg on the head for distances of up to 15 km two or
three times a week. This would give an annual transport
burden (assuming 3 times a week, or, roughly, every other
day) of 58.5 ton-km. This is roughly similar to the "nd-
ings of Barwell and Malmberg-Calvo (1988) that the
annual transport requirements for agricultural produc-
tion and marketing of a "ve-person household in Makete
District, Tanzania, was 87 ton-km. Added to this are the
demands of fetching water and fuelwood which could
bring the average requirement of a typical household to
220 ton-km, taking approximately 4800 h, annually
(Bryceson and Howe, 1993). In many cases, headloading
is the only practicable method because of the nature of
the paths and the terrain. There is huge scope for improv-
ing the transport infrastructure in rural communities,
with very signi"cant contributions from ergonomics and
logistics to ensure a thorough systems analysis to deliver
comprehensive and user-friendly solutions. In particular
the scope for intermediate means of transport (IMT)
interventions (Sieber, 1999; Gebresenbet et al., 1997) in-
corporating an ergonomics perspective should be pur-
sued. An example of an imaginative IMT development is
given in Fig. 3, illustrating a mobile shop in Kenya.
In the formal sector, appropriate manual handling
limits must be de"ned, according to local populations,
and applied. The applicability of IAC data in IDC
circumstances may need validating.
Some other occupational health and safety needs, with
respect to personal protection equipment, have already
been mentioned. Protecting the worker against airborne
and respiratory hazards is no less important in factories
than it is in agriculture, but exercising control may be
more feasible in factories (Veturi et al., 1987). Neverthe-
less, employers will take action only if the enforcement
authorities are strong enough or the economic advant-
ages are immediately and unambiguously obvious.
Protecting people at work from the dangers of heat
stress will always be a problem in tropical countries,
which most IDCs are. In the rural industries, where
people have a degree of independence, periods of work
will be chosen to avoid the hottest times of the day.
However, during `bottlenecksa, survival depends on per-
severance; guidelines or standards become irrelevant.
The solution here is to avoid bottlenecks (see section on
agriculture). In the formal sector, the applicability of
standards to deal with heat stress, especially those de-
veloped in IACs, may also be questionable. Yoopat et al.
(1998), for example, studied conditions in a Thai steel-
mill and concluded that applicability of ISO 7243 (1982)
 Barrows, bicycles, tricycles, pack animals, animal-drawn carts,
scooters, etc. (i.e. anything between headloading and small `pick-upa
trucks)
Fig. 3. Mobile shop in Kenya.
should be rati"ed. This is only one example, however,
and more research is required.
A comprehensive review of occupational health prob-
lems in IDCs has been compiled by Jeyeratnam (1992).
He asserted that the di!erences between IDCs and IACs
lie in the emphases and priorities for each. He argues the
need to provide occupational health services through
primary health care in IDCs whereas, in many IACs, this
may be seen as the control of occupational disease. In
other words, in IDCs, the emphasis must be on preven-
tion and should be a national developmental priority,
transcending the health sphere. This, however, opens
a potential con#ict as to whether the prime responsibility
should lie with the `Ministry of Laboura or `Ministry of
Healtha. There is also the question of the responsibility of
the employer, although this is of little or no relevance in
the rural `informala sector. Clearly, there is a need for
intersectoral collaboration and for including the `Minis-
try of Agriculturea, often the only means of reaching
the rural labour force. According to Sekimpi (1992), the
agricultural worker requires increased protection from
occupational health threats because of the physically
strenuous work, greater likelihood of under-nutrition
and fatigue, and greater exposure to biological threats
(e.g. zoonoses, parasitic diseases, organic dusts, etc.), plus
their additive e!ects. Sekimpi (1992) also stated that
primary health care must be the favoured model for
improving occupational health in IDCs (quoting the
Alma-Ata Declaration * WHO, 1978) and that agricul-
tural health should have special consideration.
5. Discussion
Thirty years ago, Singleton and Whit"eld (1968) were
asked to justify the promotion of ergonomics in a par-
ticular IDC where so many millions of people were
a%icted with, or dying of, diseases such as TB and
 D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640
Table 6
Major elements making up the `Livelihood Assetsa
Human Natural Physical
Skills Land Buildings
Knowledge Water Machinery
Strength/Health Biodiversity Infrastructure
leprosy. Their response was basically concerned with the
proper use of manpower. In this respect, ergonomics
must be an essential component of any nation's develop-
ment strategy. Thirty years on, with the AIDS pandemic,
this response would seem even more poignant. More
recently, Kogi and Sen (1987), in their review of `Third
Worlda ergonomics, commented that the major focus
was the analysis of workplace problems. The work that
they reviewed must surely have been directed at improv-
ing people's health and livelihoods but was this the aim
perceived in the communities at large, or did the projects
not deliver their intended outputs? Is there a bigger gap
between ergonomics and occupational health in IDCs
than in IACs? Is the potential contribution of ergonomics
interventions fully appreciated by occupational health
practitioners?
Apart from interventions by multi-national com-
panies, commented on by Meshkati (1989) and Wisner
(1985) amongst others, international aid agencies have
exerted a signi"cant in#uence on re-structuring IDCs
through both governments and NGOs (non-government
organisations). Many mistakes have been made along the
way and no agency would deny that. It is worth consider-
ing the current philosophy of the British aid agency
DFID (the Department for International Development,
formerly the ODA } Overseas Development Administra-
tion) which has been formulated, taking account of past
shortcomings, to avoid the pitfalls inevitable if a holistic
approach is not adopted. Disregarding, as far as possible,
political motivation, current thinking is based on families
or households achieving economic security, which, for
the vast majority in IDCs, depends on establishing food
security (see Table 2). The approach is based on the
concept that every family and community is endowed
with various `capitalsa to some degree. These capitals,
also described as the `livelihood assetsa, are the human,
the natural, the physical, the social and the xnancial,
comprising the elements shown in Table 6.
Thus, in total, these capitals represent a large, multi-
variate array of livelihood assets, which individuals, fami-
lies or communities can draw upon to increase their
economic security (i.e. reduce their poverty) and improve
their quality of life. To be e!ective and sustainable, any
intervention to reduce poverty must, somehow, increase
the sum total of these assets. An inappropriate interven-
tion acting on just one of these capitals without due
regard for the other elements, or consideration of their
637
Social Financial
Networks Savings
Relationships Credit
A$liations Remittances
interactions, could result in a net loss. For example, the
introduction of inappropriate machinery to raise the
physical capital could reduce labour productivity and
have a negative impact on health. This is a conventional
ergonomics scenario, but the multi-disciplinary approach
that ergonomics o!ers renders it eminently suitable to
provide a framework for this sustainable livelihoods
model.
The idea of human capital is not especially new; it
underpins the concept of human resources which is now
the focus of many management activities. However, the
idea carries greater meaning when considered in the
context of the other capitals shown in Table 6. In IDCs,
human capital has commonly been used as a synonym
for labour but, with the development of the `investing in
peoplea approach, the other issues shown in the left hand
column of Table 6 are brought into perspective. Oyowe
(1996) pointed out that a child in an IAC is born wealthy
because of its share of capital accumulated by earlier
generations. In his terminology these include roads,
schools, hospitals, telecommunications (i.e. physical in
Table 6) and the less tangible such as democracy, trades
unions, a free Press, etc. (i.e. the social in Table 6).
According to Oyowe, a typical consequence is that, for
example, a nurse in Germany earns 30 times more than
one in Bangladesh although their duties, training and
skills are much the same. The di!erence simply re#ects
the higher dividend bestowed on them through di!er-
ences in their heritages.
One element of human capital which seems to have
been somewhat underestimated in importance, at the
micro level if not at the macro level, is nutrition. Gross
energy balances of sectors of IDC populations have been
considered and compiled in documents such as the
FAO/WHO/UNU recommendations (WHO, 1985
* see also Durnin, 1987) but these tend to overlook the
circumstances of individuals (i.e. the micro level). Lon-
ghurst (1997, 1984) took a closer look at individual cir-
cumstances, considering particularly the quality,
intensity and time allocations of speci"c daily tasks, and
formulated the idea of an `energy trapa. This demon-
strates that the poorest members of communities are
unable to transform enough of their energy into income
 For more on micro- and macro-ergonomics, see Hendrick (1995) or
McNeill et al. (1999).
638 D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640
to create a surplus over subsistence. The richer people, on
the other hand, are better able to employ others to
undertake the energy-expensive tasks. Such a scenario is
highly appropriate for an ergonomics intervention, parti-
cularly one by which a poorer person, or family, could,
through improved equipment, transform more energy
into income. Referring to Table 6, and identifying the
roles of the various capitals, such an intervention would
be regarded as part of the physical capital, would be
designed for the human capital to act on the natural
capital and, to succeed, must be compatible with the
xnancial and social capitals. The constraints of the "nan-
cial capital are self-evident * what cash or credit can
a poor person access? The relevance of the social capital
to ergonomics interventions warrants a little more dis-
cussion. Whereas networks and relationships are usually
taken to have supportive or positive implications, a$li-
ations may present constraints. For example, Acheson
(1972) reported that older men in some Mexican villages
were reluctant to learn new skills, particularly relating to
crafts and industrial enterprises, as this represented
a threat to their traditional prestige. Another example of
the social capital tending to inhibit development of the
human capital comes from India (Daftuar, 1975). Village
life in rural India is deeply traditional and comprises
close-knit societies operating under the main in#uences
of family and caste. Work is shared and is regarded as
a family responsibility, with the son of a carpenter ex-
pected to be a carpenter and so on. According to Daftuar
(1975), a blacksmith will be assisted by his son who will,
in e!ect, be his apprentice, learning and practising the
same techniques. Attempts to bring in anyone from out-
side are likely to be resented. In a broader perspective,
but not so evident in the rural (or informal) sector, certain
tribal or ethnic groups have become associated with
trades unions (see Cheater, 1989). From her examples,
drawn mainly from the decolonisation period in eastern
and southern Africa, it is not clear whether there was
a net gain or loss to the communities at large. Although
such organisations are often resistant to change, it would
be wrong to brand them as Luddites.
Jeyeratnam (1992) identi"ed a di!erence in approach
(rather than in principle) by reference to occupational
health. In IDCs this should be incorporated into primary
health care schemes to deliver bene"ts whereas, in IACs
there would appear to be su$cient infrastructure to rely
on secondary schemes. This is not to say that there would
not be bene"ts in IACs if ergonomics were incorporated
into primary schemes. In IACs there are more mecha-
nisms for ergonomics interventions and there are more
opportunities to introduce the behavioural changes sug-
gested by Moray (1995), and mentioned below, which
would lead to increases in the sum total of livelihood
assets.
Kaplan (1995) commented that cultural factors are
worthy of renewed interest after attention was initially
drawn to them within the scope of ergonomics by
Chapanis (1975) and later by Wisner (1991). He suggests
that, in today's global workplace, `"tting the job to the
culturea may be more important than &"tting the job to
the man', quoting a personal communication with
Maurino (1993) * `technology is not a good traveller
unless it is culturally calibrateda. Ultimately, we must be
able to answer questions such as how does culture a!ect
(i) the relationship between human performance and its
controlling variables, (ii) sensory functions and (iii) cogni-
tive processes and mental models (e.g. for training). Gurr
et al. (1998), pursuing this line of thought, warn of
the possibility that ergonomists, making cross-cultural
recommendations, may even provide detrimental advice.
They refer, in particular, to the case of sitting or squatting
and are concerned that, with ergonomics being a con-
struction of Western culture, the conclusions and recom-
mendations from research into postural and musculo-
skeletal issues have a cultural bias.
Moray (1995) stated that the need to help countries
caught in the trap of rising population and falling natural
and economic resources is surely a challenge that should
attract ergonomists, rather than the development of tech-
nical solutions suitable for a capital-intensive society.
What ergonomics has to contribute is a technology
for changing behaviour to o!set problems. The task of
ergonomics is to design a lifestyle support system that
elicits the behaviour required to reduce the severity of
global problems, taking into account cultural and
environmental di!erences. This is a mammoth challenge,
stretching ergonomics to the limit and, above all,
demanding a holistic approach, with ergonomists play-
ing their part in a multi-disciplinary team. At present,
unfortunately, the necessary resources are not available
and, maybe, the international will to assemble the neces-
sary resources is not yet strong enough.
6. Conclusions
The application of ergonomics principles in IDCs is
not at odds with their application in IACs but the imple-
mentation would seem to require an extra challenge and,
maybe, a di!erent starting point. Extra e!ort and skills
are required (i) to compensate for the lack of infrastruc-
ture in providing a framework within which ergonomists
can operate and ergonomics recommendations can be
disseminated and realised, (ii) to deal with the hazy dis-
tinction between work and household security or family
survival, (iii) to observe and respond to the cultural
dimension(s) and (iv) to devise a!ordable improvements
for people with very few, if any, cash assets.
Ergonomics provides an approach which must be in-
tegrated into all national development plans aimed at
combatting poverty, but ergonomics will be regarded as
a useful input only if its potential and promises are
 D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640
delivered. Converting ergonomics concepts into sustain-
able improvements in quality of life, whether primarily
via improvements to working conditions or to occupa-
tional health, requires many other factors to be in place.
Kaplan's (1995) comment about "tting into the culture is
key to the delivery of ergonomics bene"ts.
With the relatively low status of ergonomics in IDCs,
largely attributable to infrastructural arrangements, it
may be said that ergonomics (such as de"ned by Pheas-
ant, 1991) is too important to be the sole responsibility of
ergonomists. Nevertheless, with the potential for con-
fusion over which government ministry should take the
lead, as suggested by Jeyeratnam (1992), ergonomists
must be at the forefront in addressing and orchestrating
the development challenge. The need for ergonomics
initiatives and ergonomists, providing cultural sensitivity
and participatory skills, collaborating in multi-disciplin-
ary teams and employing bottom-up rather than top-
down technology development, is even more acute in
IDCs than in IACs. Closer collaboration between occu-
pational health and ergonomics practitioners o!ers
a promising starting point.
In considering the question posed in the title of this
paper, the di!erence at the start of the new millennium,
lies in where we are coming from, not where we are going
to. The principles do not di!er nor do the goals of healthy
and productive communities, but these goals will not
necessarily be attained by taking the same track.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the many in#uences, in
particular DFID (the Department for International De-
velopment, London), whose sponsorship over a wide
range of projects has enabled me to develop the views
expressed. However, these views are entirely my own and
may not be attributed to any of the organisations with
whom and for whom I have worked.
References
Acheson, J.M., 1972. Limited good or limited goods? Response to
economic opportunity in a Tarascan pueblo. Am. Anthropol. 74 (5),
1152}1169.
Anon, 2000. Ergonomics International News and Information, March
2000. Ergonomics 43 (3), 434}442.
Asogwa, S.E., 1987. Prevention of accidents and injuries in developing
countries. Ergonomics 30 (2), 379}386.
Ahasan, M.R., Mohiuddin, G., VaK yrynen, S., Ironkannas, H., Quddus,
R., 1999. Work-related problems in metal handling tasks in
Bangladesh: obstacles to the development of safety and health
measures. Ergonomics 42 (2), 385}396.
Barwell, I., Malmberg-Calvo, C., 1988. Makete integrated rural trans-
port project: the transport demands of rural households, "ndings
from a village-level travel survey. Rural Transport Paper No. 19,
ILO, Geneva, 90 pp.
639
Bryceson, D.F., Howe, J., 1993. Reducing household transport
in Africa: reducing the burden on women?. World Dev. 21 (11),
1715}1728.
Chapanis, A. (Ed.), 1975. Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineer-
ing. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Cheater, A.P., 1989. Social Anthropology: An Alternative Introduction.
Routledge, London.
Daftuar, C.N., 1975. The role of human factors engineering in underde-
veloped countries, with special reference to India. In: Chapanis, A.
(Ed.), Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering. Johns Hop-
kins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 91}113.
Durnin, J.V.G.A., 1987. Energy requirements - the 1985
FAO/WHO/UNU recommendations. Chemistry and Industry
543}547.
FAO, 1992. Introduction to ergonomics in forestry in developing coun-
tries. FAO Forestry Paper 100, FAO, Rome.
FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985. Energy and protein requirements. Technical
Report Series 724, WHO, Geneva.
Gebresenbet, G., O'Neill, D., Mutua, J., Oram, C., 1997. Technological
support for rural agricultural transport and development. Keynote
paper presentation to Improving Rural Agricultural Transport Sys-
tems for Enhanced Production and Marketing in Smallholder
Farms of East Africa. Proceedings published by KENDAT (Kenya
Network for Draught Animal Technology), Nairobi.
Ghugare, B.D., Adhaoo, S.H., Gite, L.P., Pandya, A.C., Patel, S.L.,
1991. Ergonomics evaluation of a lever operated knapsack sprayer.
Appl. Ergon. 22 (4), 241}250.
Gurr, K., Straker, L., Moore, P., 1998. Cultural hazards in the transfer
of ergonomics technology. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 22, 397}404.
Haggblade, S., Hammer, J., Hazell, P., 1991. Modeling agricultural
growth multipliers. Am. J Agric. Econ. 73, 361}374.
Hendrick, H., 1995. Future directions in macroergonomics. Ergonom-
ics 38 (8), 1617}1624.
Igbeka, J.C., 1993. Some ergonomic studies of Nigerian women in-
volved in agricultural processing. Proceedings of XXV CIOSTA
CIGR V Congress, 1993, pp. 183-189.
ISO 7243, 1982. Hot environments * estimation of the heat stress on
working man based on the WBGT index. International Standards
Organisation, Geneva.
Jafry, T., O'Neill, D.H., 1997. The role of ergonomics in development
aid programmes. In: Robertson, S.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Ergo-
nomics, 1997, Proceedings of the 1997 Annual Conference of the
Ergonomics Society. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 60}65.
Jeyeratnam, J., 1992. Occupational Health in Developing Countries.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. xi}xii.
Kaplan, M., 1995. The culture at work: cultural ergonomics. Ergonom-
ics 38 (3), 606}615.
Kogi, K., 1985. Participatory approach in applying ergonomics for
workplace improvements in developing countries. In: Brown, I.D.,
Goldsmith, R., Coombes, K., Sinclair, M. (Eds.), Ergonomics Inter-
national 85. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 370}372.
Kogi, K., 1997. Ergonomics and technology transfer into small and
medium-sized enterprises. Ergonomics 40 (10), 1118}1129.
Kogi, K., Kawakami, T., Itani, T., Batino, J.M., 1998. Impact on
productivity of low-cost work improvement in small enterprises in
a developing country. In: Scott, P., Bridger, R.S., Charteris, J. (Eds.),
Global Ergonomics. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 23}26.
Kogi, K., Sen, R.N., 1987. Third world ergonomics. In: Oborne, D.J.
(Ed.), International Reviews of Ergonomics, Vol. 1. Taylor & Fran-
cis, London, pp. 77}118.
Longhurst, R., 1984. The energy trap: work, nutrition and child malnu-
trition in northern Nigeria. Cornell International Monograph
Series No 13, Ithaca, New York.
Longhurst, R., 1997. Gender dimensions: the energy trap revisited.
Paper presented at the Workshop Gender di!erentials in work
intensity, sustainability and development, University of East Anglia,
July 1997.
640 D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640
Manuaba, A., 1979. Ergonomics and development in Bali Indonesia. In:
van Loon, J.H., Staudt, F.J., Zander, J. (Eds.), Ergonomics in Tropi-
cal Agriculture and Forestry. Centre for Agricultural Publishing
and Documentation. Wageningen, pp. 108}112.
Manuaba, A., Nala, N., 1969. A survey on patjols in Bali. Proceedings
of 16th International Congress on Occupational Health, Tokyo, pp.
434-436.
Mbakaya, C.F.L., Onyoyo, H.A., Lwaki, S.A., Omondi, O.J., 1999.
A survey on management perspectives of the state of workplace
health and safety practices in Kenya. Accid. Anal. Prev. 31, 305}312.
McNeill, M.B., O'Neill, D.H., 1998. Occupational disorders in
Ghanaian subsistence farmers. In: Hanson, M.A. (Ed.), Contempor-
ary Ergonomics, 1998, Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference
of the Ergonomics Society. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 592}597.
McNeill, M.B., Parsons, K.C., 1999. Appropriateness of international
heat stress standards for use in tropical agricultural environments.
Ergonomics 42 (6), 779}797.
McNeill, M.B., Parsons, K.C., O'Neill, D.H., 1999. Ergonomics consid-
erations in technology transfer and development. Sci. Technol. Dev.
16 (3), 100}110.
Meshkati, N., 1989. Technology transfer to developing countries: a tri-
partite micro- and macroergonomic analysis of human-organisa-
tion-technology interfaces. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 4, 101}115.
Moray, N., 1995. Ergonomics and the global problems of the twenty-
"rst century. Ergonomics 38 (8), 1691}1707.
Nag, P.K., Chatterjee, S.K., 1981. Physiological reactions of female
workers in Indian agricultural work. Hum. Factors 23 (5), 607}614.
North, K., 1987. Ergonomics in developing countries: a need or a lux-
ury? In: Ergonomics in Developing Countries: an International
Symposium, Occupational Safety and Health Series No. 58, Inter-
national Labour O$ce, Geneva, pp. 126-133.
O'Neill, D.H., 1997. Participatory ergonomics with subsistence farmers.
In: Robertson, S.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics, 1997, Pro-
ceedings of the 1997 Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society.
Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 232}237.
Ong, C.N., Kogi, K., 1992. Application of ergonomics to developing
countries. In: Jeyeratnam, J. (Ed.), Occupational Health in Develop-
ing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 211}234.
Oyowe, A., 1996. Investing in people. The Courier No 159 (September-
October 1996), pp. 45}47.
Pheasant, S.T., 1991. Ergonomics, Work and Health. Macmillan Press,
London.
Rainbird, G., O'Neill, D.H., 1995. Occupational disorders a!ecting
agricultural workers in tropical developing countries. Appl. Ergon.
26, 187}193.
Rogan, A., O'Neill, D.H., 1993. Ergonomics aspects of crop production
in tropical developing countries: a literature review. Appl. Ergon. 24
(6), 371}386.
Sekimpi, D.K., 1992. Occupational health services for agricultural
workers. In: Jeyeratnam, J. (Ed.), Occupational Health in
Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 31}61.
Sen, R.N., 1984. Application of ergonomics to industrially developing
countries. Ergonomics 27 (10), 1021}1032.
Shahnavaz, H., 1983. Ergonomics of developing countries: a conceptual
approach. Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Ergonomics of Developing Countries, Centre for Ergonomics of
Developing Countries, Lulea, Sweden.
Singleton, W.T., Whit"eld, W., 1968. The organisation and conduct of
a World Health Organisation inter-regional course on ergonomics
for developing countries. Human Factors 10 (6), 633}640.
Sieber, N., 1999. Transporting the yield: appropriate transport for
agricultural production and marketing in sub-Saharan Africa.
Transp. Rev. 19 (3), 205}220.
Spedding, C.R.W., 1996. Agriculture and the Citizen. Chapman & Hall,
London.
Teniswood, C.F., 1987. Ergonomics in industry. In: Ergonomics in
Developing Countries: an International Symposium, Occupational
Safety and Health Series No. 58, International Labour O$ce,
Geneva, pp. 183}191.
Veturi, S.M., Lakshmi, B.K., Ganguli, A.K., Chakrabarti, A.K., 1987.
The impact and feasibility of international/national standards in the
prevention of musculoskeletal injuries in developing countries.
Ergonomics 30 (2), 405}410.
Winkelmann, D.L., 1998. Productivity, poverty alleviation and food
security. In: Waterlow, J.C., Armstrong, D.G., Fowden, L., Riley, R.
(Eds.), Feeding a World Population of More Than Eight Billion
People * A Challenge to Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 264}272.
WHO, 1978. Alma-Ata 1978. Primary health care. Report of the Inter-
national Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, USSR.
WHO, Geneva.
Wisner, A., 1985. Ergonomics in industrially developing countries.
Ergonomics 28 (8), 1213}1224.
Wisner, A., 1991. New technologies and old thoughts: relations between
ergonomics and cognitive anthropology. In: Singleton, W.T., Dirkx,
J. (Eds.), Ergonomics, Health and Safety: Perspectives for the Nine-
ties. Leuven University Press, Leuven, pp. 41}55.
Yoopat, P., Vanwonterghem, K., Intanaront, K., 1998. An assessment
of workload in the Thai steel industry. Appl. Ergon. 29 (4), 267}271.