Critical Appraisal of Technology Transfer Mechanisms between US, UK, Europe, Middle and Far East - Essay Example

Critical Appraisal of Technology Transfer Mechanisms between US, UK, Europe, Middle and Far East Introduction Technology transfer, also referred to as Transfer of Technology (TOT) refers to the act of transferring skills, information, technology, manufacturing techniques, samples of processes, and facilities within governments or universities in order to allow for the accessibility of technological processes to different users who would later improve on the products. Technology transfer includes various mechanisms, products, and tools and often covers different countries and universities. This transfer of technologies often leads to the expansion of knowledge as well as the sharing of technology between countries with specific interests on development and continued industrialization processes. The transfer of technologies however involves different issues, including global warming, national interests versus global impact, protection of intellectual properties, copyright, societal considerations, fitness for purpose, economic growth and global competition, as well as outsourcing versus technological superiority. These issues often impact negatively on both the countries where the technology is transferred and the country which is transferring the technology. This paper will provide a critical look at technology transfer mechanisms between the US, UK, Europe, and the Middle and Far East Asia. It will evaluate the need and justification for global technology transfer which is essential to resolve global issues including global warming, as well as related technology transfer issues. This paper is being carried out in order to comprehensively assess the specific elements involved in technology transfer as well as the issues involved in such transfer processes. Main body There are different definitions of technology and technology transfer. Technology refers to the knowledge which is needed to plan, build, and implement production processes and possible services related to the process. It also refers to the identified utilization of scientific and technical tools for the creation of goods and services (Bozeman, 2000). Technology transfer is a process where two or more parties come to an agreement. Under these conditions, the recipient is able to secure a better ability to plan and create products or to develop the know-how in the operation of production facilities or service systems (Bozeman, 2000). It usually includes technology trade where technology and other technical resources are provided by a supplier to a recipient (Argote, et.al., 1990). This transfer may also include technology absorption, where the recipient uses the technology in the maintenance of its technological facilities. The mechanisms for technology transfer include the Cooperative Research and Development Agreements or CRADA (Department of Homeland Security, 2012). This mechanism is often used in most elements of the product life cycle. It includes research, development, and evaluation. Personnel, services, intellectual property and other tools are also often needed for these processes. Licensing agreement is also a mechanism in technology transfer (Department of Homeland Security, 2012). It includes a contract between the owner and the user allowing the latter to use the product in accordance with the contract. Memorandum of understanding is also another mechanism. This understanding sets-up a framework of cooperation between agencies and it facilitates operations and the sharing of resources (Department of Homeland Security, 2012). Finally, a partnership intermediary agreement is an agreement between a specific department/agency. It is meant to ensure that partnership intermediaries would indicate the new tools in the private sector which can be used by the department, that they would assist in joint projects between departments and private companies to speed up the delivery of technology to the state, and that help would be provided to the companies in indicating the technologies which can be commercialized (Department of Homeland Security, 2012). Social tools, institutions, as well as services usually evolve with time and they are likely founded on the development and growth of technology. For example, although technology also developed in ancient China and the Middle East, their industrial revolution unfolded much later than their English counterparts (Nezu, 2007). The reason for such a phenomenon has yet to be settled. What is clear however is the fact that the differences in the cultures and social processes between the East and the West have a role to play in the delay (Nezu, 2007). Differences between the East and the West seem to be guiding the current incidents of transfers in technology. At present, technology is very much imperfect, mostly because of the presence of regulatory mechanisms including intellectual property rights as well as high costs of technology which often prevent and hamper the market entry of these technologies. The only means by which free market is reached is through licensing which was used well by the Soviet Union and in some cases, Japan (Stewart, 1978). However, this tool may not often be available for some kinds of technology transfers. Technology transfers are considered for different purposes, one of these purposes being the management of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With the increase of GHG emissions from developing nations, establishing policy which would secure the transfer of clean technology to developing countries has become a significant consideration in discussions on climate change (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 2012). The Kyoto Agreement includes planned provisions for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) which encourages support for developed states who assist in decreasing emissions in developing countries (ICTSD, 2012). Since carbon emissions are considered global public good, CDMs can assist developed states in gaining emission targets at low cost, permitting firms from developed countries to use the more effective and more expensive emissions reducer in their home nation. Among developing states, technology transfer and distribution of clean technologies may be a significant benefit from the CDM (Maskus, 2004). By ensuring access to technology which may not be available in developing nations, technology transfer can utilize unused, low-cost emissions reductions, thereby ensuring substitution from high cost activities in developed nations. There are also potentially strong gains which can be secured through technology transfers. When the technology base of the receiving country is improved, transfers of environmentally friendly resources help decrease the cost curve of technology, allowing processes to decrease future emissions at lower costs (Brown and Wilson, 1992). In evaluating environmental processes, states assess the benefits of cleaner environments in relation to the costs of adhering to the regulation. Technological improvements decrease allocations for compliance, allowing regulation to set in. Popp (2008) discusses that access to improved pollution control techniques causes countries to secure environmental regulations at decreased levels of per capita income. In 2006, China’s Report on the State of the Environment in China (State Environmental Protection Administration, 2006) indicated that scientific discoveries were the means by which major changes on environmental protection could be implemented. By decreasing the costs of carbon mitigation, technology transfer methods can secure benefits and improve the participation of developing states in the reduction of carbon emissions (Popp, 2008). Considering the costs and benefits of international technology transfers, issues can be experienced in securing such transfers. Firstly, technology transfer does not exist in a vacuum. As carbon emissions are not estimated within free markets, there is not much incentive in the reduction of emissions especially with the lack of climate policies (Barton, 2007). This is applicable to technology transfers as well. Clean technologies usually do not go beyond borders, not unless there are policies for the receiving country securing incentives to promote clean technology (Barton and Maskus, 2003). With the needs for sustained development, developing nations would not likely develop policies in the management of carbon emissions. Instead, motivations for such technologies are seen from the commitment of developed states. For instance, majority of the transfers of environmentally friendly technologies to developing states are mostly seen via the CDM, which authorizes concerned authorities in developed states to comply with reduction limits by supporting projects in developing countries (Maskus, 2004). This represents a major challenge in the cost estimations and rewards of technology transfer with these transfers not occurring beyond climate policies. The transfer of technology also comes in different forms – direct or indirect. In relation to climate change, specific elements will be discussed. Direct transfers would include instances where developed states would support carbon mitigation projects in developing states (Andersen, et.al., 2007). The mitigation technology can be used by the receiving country mostly because of the funding secured by the developed country. The direct transfers can also be seen through international trade, specifically in instances where technological support is seen in the product being transferred (Andersen, et.al., 2007). For modellers, information of direct transfers would be readily seen and would easily include policy statements. On the other hand, indirect transfers usually include intangible knowledge (Hoekman, 2004). Examples are demonstration activities or training of locals. Intangible technology transfers secure significant spillovers often mentioned in other studies. Spillovers are seen when the transferor of technology is not given enough compensation for the benefits gained by the recipient (Maskus, et.al., 2004). To include the relevance of such spillovers, it is important to realize that the application of advanced equipment given to a recipient state may give the recipient state a chance to decrease carbon emissions. However, the transfers do not automatically ensure the recipient state the skill to duplicate the technology on their own (Maskus, et.al., 2004). On the other hand, intangible technology transfers allow the recipient to gain skills which can be applied in future activities led by recipient nations, thereby allowing for a spillover effect (Suppan, 2008). As spillovers are seen in different activities, they may also be difficult to detect. The concept of choice implies the presence of alternatives. The option of channel of transfer of technology is used primarily between two choices: first, the transfer technology by FDI or joint venture or, the transfer of technology via contractual understandings like licensing (United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations-UNCTC, 1988). In most instances, the multinational companies, when not regulated, would choose technology transfer through foreign direct investment over other forms of transfer channels (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development - UNCTAD, 1991). However, this has not gained general and unlimited acceptance or legal support. Even where an MNC would have a potentially unique technological contribution which gives it monopolist power, the option of the channel for technology transfer would likely be limited by different elements, most being beyond primary controls (Hill, 2001). This would include government laws, industry set-ups and competition. Within the option of transfer channel is the degree of control which the MNC would have over such channel. The MNC mostly considers its global processes as coordinated activities which have to be managed and controlled within the central offices of the home countries (Hill, 2001). In effect, MNCs would have to use the transfer channel which they have to control. This would include wholly-owned subsidiaries, as well as other channels where it can implement control over transfers, thereby allowing companies to secure operations in the host country. Aside from the effective control element, Baranson (1969) discusses other elements which can impact on the preference for direct investment processes, and not contractual agreements. Firstly, if MNCs have sufficient financial and personnel resources to invest in other countries, they may want to opt for the direct investment channel for the transfer (Gwynne, 1990). Secondly, if the MNCs do not favour the use of any other channel of transfer aside from direct investment channels due to their apprehensions on the overuse of the technological know-how, then these MNCs may not use other channels (Gwynne, 1990). Such perception comes from the desire to secure monopolist options which technological uniqueness may allow the company within a given market. Thirdly, the direct investment channel may be considered if the technology transfer would include different complicated and linked products (Howells and Wood, 1993). Fourth, if the technology to be connected is complicated and the foreign channels do not have the technical and industrial power to utilize it for profit, the MNC would likely opt for the direct investment channel (Howells and Wood, 1993). Finally, MNCs would likely opt for investments in recipient countries if there is a need to manage products and trademarks (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). On the other hand, the MNCs may also choose licensing technologies, not direct investments due to a variety of reasons. One of these reasons may be the type of the technology being considered. If the technology is a standard type which can be considered old, the licensing process may be chosen over direct investment because this process would not interfere with the profitability of companies in general (Chatterji, 1990). Another reason would be the identified advantage which a specific technology would attribute to the owner. Large firms which have specific assets may impose licenses on their particular technology in order to guarantee royalties on the use of its technology; under these conditions, they would not have to invest in capital (Chatterji, 1990). This may be applied mostly because companies would likely secure control over their specific know-how within the technological processes. Coca-Cola for example is able to achieve such goals by using the existing compounded syrup which licensees can include to create the soft drinks (Caves, 1982). Another reason would be the management of foreign direct investments for some host states. Some host governments may have policies which make it difficult to secure profits from FDIs, leaving licensing to be the primary alternative choice within these processes (Caves, 1982). Moreover, the indications for licensing rely on the size of the host market and the considerations relating to direct investments. If host markets are limited, the issue of direct investment would increase and cause MNCs to provide license for their technology (Shamsavari, 1996). Licensing preferences may be pushed if the host country is unstable, putting the investment at risk. This is an issue among many developing states in the Middle East and Far East Asia (Shamsavari, 1996). Other reasons would be the limited experience and national thrust of the company, and the limited abilities of the licensee (Souder, 1990). For technology owners without any experience in FDIs and for those which have a strong national orientation, licensing may be used over and above direct investments. In the same vein, if technology would not be commercially successful, the MNC may support the licensing process, not the direct investment (Buckley, 1989). Another issue is on branding. Globally-renowned brands like Mercedes would not be made to undergo licensing agreements because the licensee is allowed to carry out modifications which would impact on the reputation of the brand (Grant and Gregory, 1997). Finally, in scenarios where patent lawsuits or competition for technology development would be avoided, the MNCs may choose the licensing of technologies. The choice on the channel in the transfer of technology is not as simple as presented above (Grant and Gregory, 1997). Within the two possible options for transfers of wholly-owned subsidiaries and licensing, there are various intermediaries which can be labelled as possible options (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). There may even be practical instances where some of the determinants indicated above have a limited role in the decision-making process. These incidents are mostly seen within developing nations where there is limited technology and limited know-how from the local businesses in relation to the transferred technology. The transfer of technology mostly includes the direct and indirect transfer models (UNCTAD, 1991). These models are also referred to as bundled and unbundled methods. MNCs may use any of the methods based on the issues discussed above. For the direct transfer process, the recipient usually considers various suppliers of technology to enter into a contract with and to supply its technological needs (Grupp, 1994). The supply may include specific technological variables or combined variables. Essential elements in the direct transfer method would be the independence of the parties to the transaction. The suppliers and receivers are independent parties. There is also strict legality expected in the contract (Grupp, 1994). The designation of technology unfolds within contractual agreements stating comprehensively the rights and responsibilities of the contracting parties. Within the direct transfer method, the MNCs can utilize different technological tools to make the transfer possible. Methods may include the licensing agreements, technical service agreements, machinery supply agreements, engineering and construction agreements, management contracts, and turnkey contracts (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). These methods may however be arbitrary because in actual practice, it may be usual to find single contracts within any one of these methods (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). For instance, license agreements may include technical service contracts, turnkey contracts may also include license, technical service, and engineering contracts. Choosing any one of the devices would depend on the requisites of the recipients. Licensing agreements includes the licensor, which usually has the intellectual property rights including the technology and the brand name, and it would also include the licensee (another company), who is meaning to use or sell such rights in order to secure financial gain (Taha, 2002). Licensing agreements are usually not new deals within the business community. The Soviet Union and even Japan actually utilized licensing in order to gain different technologies from the West. Licensing usually applies to small companies within high technology realms (Taha, 2002). Small companies usually do not have the financial tools to participate in export or in FDI. As these companies are also in high technology sectors, there is a possibility that new technologies can be upgraded, often causing the company to be in a non-competitive mode (Rosenberg, 1988). Therefore, licensing can assist small companies in high technology fields to regain the costs they incurred in research and development at relatively low costs. Licensing can however have its problems. The licensees may also eventually gain enough power to be a strong competitor against the licensor, once the license contract has ended (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). Furthermore, while the agreement is in place, the licensor cannot control the quality of the product actually being produced by the licensee. Therefore, good brand names may be put at risk by the careless activities of the licensee. Thus, in evaluating the licensing agreement, licensor companies must assess the initial cost savings versus the issues of control over the quality of the brand and the product (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). Oftentimes, the agreement may also cover technical service arrangements which refer to technical or managerial skills, the delivery of intermediate outputs, or the delivery of machines (Daussage, 1992). This is often seen in license agreements which are made with licensees in developing nations. This scenario may be understood better based on the acceptance of the imperfection of the technology market within developing nations, as well as the monopoly of the suppliers of technology (Bhagwati, 1983). Charges for technology under license agreements are called royalties. Fees for technical services are considered fees. These are all charges borne by the licensee. The rates for each case are indicated during the negotiation processes and such rates are based on relative bargaining powers for the parties involved, supported by the market dictates of supply-demand (Bhagwati, 1983). Engineering and construction contracts are often paid lump sum. As a tool of technology transfer, licensing has many benefits. It bypasses trade issues often seen in relation to the sale of plants and equipment (Chatterjee, 1990). As equity participation is also not an essential element in licensing agreements, the issue of foreign domination is applied. In instances where FDIs are not allowed, licensing may be the better option in relation to other mechanisms of technology transfer (Chatterjee, 1990). Finally, where there are government barriers on the diminution in foreign exchange rates, payments for the technology are often given priority. These licensing agreements however have been criticized because of the restrictions which are often indicated in the contracts (Etele, 1985). Another direct transfer method is the machinery supply contract where the supply of goods, mostly capital goods have long been traditional means of transferring technology to the less developed countries (Malecki, 1997). Plants and equipment, including hand tools and company supplies for developing states cover technologies which these buyers eventually learn to use. All equipments usually bear the design, composition of materials in order to produce it. MNCs consider this type of transfer very convenient (Malecki, 1997). The risks to the companies are low since the payment is already guaranteed. Moreover, the involvement of the MNC in the transmission of technology is limited by the instructions in the use of the machinery (Singursaon, 1990). In some instances, the MNCs assign technicians to install the machines and test it for the buyers. The transfer of technologies to developing states has been an important practice, especially as they are also able to gain technical knowledge on the use and applications of technology (Singursaon, 1990). However, the direct transfer can sometimes be restricted by patent rights and by the legal impositions of the developed states. Under these conditions, patented machines can only be purchased if the manufacturers have patents over the equipment (Fransman, 1986). In addition, regulations of purchasing states can sometimes limit the import of machines as preserving foreign exchange may be a primary consideration. This may then limit the import of machines which are perceived as inappropriate; in the end, states may opt to support their domestic manufacturing processes (Riedijk, 1987). Moreover, technology found in the machines is only a small element of technology essential for productive applications. Therefore, the success of this application is based on the availability of other methods of transfer. Another method of direct transfer is franchising. This is similar to licensing, in some cases, an improvement on the process because there is a continuous relationship between the franchiser and the franchisee (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). It includes other activities such as the training of franchisee staff in the management of operations. It also includes the payment of royalties. Popular within franchising markets include the food chains like MacDonalds and Burger King where food retailers are given franchises to operate (Shamsavari, 1996). Franchising usually applies to the simpler goods, not complicated products like computers or machinery. The products also do not require maintenance or consumer education; moreover, the technology is relatively easy to copy (Shamsavari, 2000). The goods are also not easy to trade beyond national borders. Exporting may therefore not work well; hence franchising would secure the quality of the goods, very much like its original traders. Franchising has in recent years emerged as a strong form of technology transfer (Souder, 1990). Issues associated with franchising include government regulations, issues on the selection of appropriate franchisees, limited host country investment, limited control of franchisees, and adjustments needed to fit the local needs (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). Management contracts are also another direct form of technology transfer. These contracts include marketing and technical service agreements. It also includes the transmission of skills as well as technology with corresponding fees attached (Feller, 1997). For products and technologies sold under licenses, the licensee may sometimes require additional help in maintaining the technology and in managing marketing processes (Feller, 1997). An issue with this type of transfer is on how to secure trading relations which would fit the parties of the contract. Finally, the turnkey contract is another method of direct transfer of technology. These contracts often include the planning and creation of facilities by MNCs in certain host countries. A fee is usually paid to the MNC for such contracts (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). The recipients may be companies in the host country or a government agency. This contract may include car assembly plants, telecommunication systems, as well as power stations. A turnkey project may therefore be a one-time only deal. However, it may also involve management contracts and training packages (Shamsavari, 1996). A longer-term status of the relationship may therefore be involved. A financing agreement may also be established with the supplier. Large companies are usually involved in turnkey agreements because of the size of the project involved. This contract is beneficial because in instances of complicated technology, the assembly and operation provides major advantages for the supplier (Shamsavari, 2000). Turnkey contracts can therefore secure profit for the supplier. This is especially applicable when FDIs may not be a logical mode of international entry into the host country (Hill, 2001). There are also lesser risks involved in these contracts because sales contracts not investments are involved. Issues like instability and hostilities from the host country towards foreign investors would not be an issue under these conditions (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). There are however issues in the application of turnkey contracts. First, contracting companies would not have any vested interests in the host country. Second, the company entering into the contract may inadvertently be helping create a future competitor (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). Thirdly, although these agreements are beneficial to host countries, as they help decrease the risks in acquiring different elements in technology via contracts and knowledge transfers, there are issues on its efficacy in conveying technology (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). International subcontracting is also another method of transferring technology. International subcontracting or outsourcing manifests where manufacturing companies in developed states subcontract the different parts of their manufacturing process to a lesser developed country (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). This process seeks to take advantage of cheap labour and favourable incentives, like tax breaks, provided by host governments. This style of doing business was first started by the US in its deal with Mexico in the 1950s and 1960s; eventually other European firms also started outsourcing some of their processes to North African countries. At present, the US, UK, Australia, and other developed countries have become involved in this practice, subcontracting other aspects of their manufacturing processes to Asian countries like India, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). These countries in turn have gained major advantages in terms of business and employment, including the acquisition of technology. The transfer of technology can also be carried out indirectly. This method secures conditions which assist in direct transfer of technology. Through joint ventures and FDIs, indirect transfer routes are established (Smith, 2001). Joint ventures have expanded since the 1960s. The success of joint ventures is primarily owed to ventures of Asian markets with Japanese and American companies (Smith, 2001). These joint ventures had major roles in inviting lesser developed states into foreign investments. It secured advantages for MNCs as well as host states. These ventures eliminated objections and obstacles to foreign investments, dividing costs to accommodate technological changes, and finally allowed for the combination of technological abilities (Swanson and Goeschl, 2004). These joint ventures can also be bothersome especially as they primarily involve possible disagreements among participants over applied strategies. These joint ventures may be eliminated where wholly owned FDIs are present and are preferred by partners (Swanson and Goeschl, 2004). Issues on strategies, including operations and managerial processes can cause major disagreements among participants. Foreign direct investments are an indirect form of technology transfer. FDIs include investments made on physical capital, including technology and equipment (Tybout, 2003). FDI mostly establishes ways by which the invested funds can be controlled. FDIs are usually reciprocal ventures. They are not usually affected by increased interest rates and they can be used in different ways and guided into different directions. FDIs however have issues as well. Primarily, there are contractual agreements which are also seen alongside these investments (Shamsavari, et.al., 1996). Such agreements are mostly package deal, not separate deals for each technological factor. Due to this issue, investments may be preferred mostly on direct investments through transfer technology to developing states. It is believed that the traditional transfer models are founded on closed economies which fit the pre-war era. In the post World War II period however, globalisation has made major strides and has become a major element in the economy (World Bank, 2001). Traditional models are therefore very much outdated as these models are founded on a limited understanding of technology and a closed-business setting. As these conditions are relaxed, the traditional models do not adequately explain technology transfer (Shamsavari, et.al., 2000). The open economy establishes new options and avenues. For example, countries with strong and flexible exchange rates may not be able to attract FDI as MNCs may consider the outsourcing of processes to countries with major devaluations in their exchange rates. The bigger understanding of technology indicates that in the current setting, the transfer of knowledge is the main issue (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). Therefore a lesser developed country may not be able to secure a transfer process, but may be able to utilize other elements of knowledge transfer. The crucial point which has to be remembered is that in the current globalised setting, traditional technology transfers are hardly applicable (Shamsavari, 1996). Transfer technology which considers the competitive world economy is however more relevant today. Regardless of the benefits seen in the transfer of technology, its risks indicate that it is also important and is possible for countries to gain technological independence (Stewart, 1978). Admittedly, there are previous indications for technological independence of countries like that of Britain in the 19th century, and in some cases, for the US, Japan, and USSR at some point as well. This independence was however based on closed systems (Stewart, 1978). None of these instances of independence however actually lasted long. It is however possible to establish a successful transfer of technology and independence in specific sectors of the economy if the different linkages are weak or in some service sectors local suppliers can easily be recruited (Shamsavari, et.al., 2003). However, where other more complicated products are considered, it is often impossible to secure actual technological independence, except in large states, while in their initial phases of development. Conclusion The discussion above indicates the different aspects of technology transfers. These transfers include different processes which eventually seek to establish more open and globalized market processes. In some instances, there are issues and gaps in the application of these transfers. The transfer mechanisms involve issues which relate to cost, application, disagreements between the transferor and the recipients, and legal as well as financial barriers felt by transferors. The issue of global warming and the greenhouse effect are also issues which are being addressed in the transfer of technology. All in all, despite issues in the transfer, technology transfers have now become commonplace within the global economic fabric. References Andersen, J. and Wincoop, E., 2001. Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93, pp. 170-192. Argote, L., Beckman, S., and Epple, D., 1990. The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science 36(2). Baranson, J., 1969. Automative industries in developing countries. World Bank Staff Occasional Papers, IBRD Barton, J. and Maskus, K., 2003. Economic perspectives on a multilateral agreement on open access to basic science and technology. University of Colorado. Bhagwati, J., 1983. Lectures on international trade. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Bozeman, B., 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, pp. 627–655 Brown, M. and Wilson, C., 1992. Promoting the commercialization of energy innovations — an evaluation of the energy-related inventions program. Policy Studies Journal, 20(1), pp.87– 101. Buckley, P., 1989. The future of multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan. Caves, R., 1982. Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chatterjee, M., 1990. Technology transfer in developing countries. London: Macmillan. Daussage, P., 1992. Strategic technology management. London: John Wiley & Sons. Department of Homeland Security, 2012. Technology transfer mechanisms [online]. Available at: http://www.dhs.gov/technology-transfer-mechanisms [Accessed 26 February 2013]. Etele, A., 1985. Licensing and the pricing of technology. Management Decision, 23 Feller, I., 1987. Technology transfer, public policy and the cooperative extension service–OMB imbroglio. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6, pp. 307–327 Fransman, M., 1986. Technology and economic development. London: MacMillan Grant, E. and Gregory, M., 1997. Tacit knowledge, the life cycle and international manufacturing transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 9(2), pp. 149–161. Grupp, H., 1994. Linking international technology transfer with strategy and management: a literature commentary. Research Policy, 23(2), pp. 175–217. Gwynne, R., 1990. New horizons? Third world industrialization in an international Framework. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited. Hill, C., 2001. Global business. London: McGraw-Hill. Hoekman, B., Maskus, K., and Saggi, K., 2004. Transfer of technology to developing Countries: unilateral and multilateral policy options. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3332. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Howells, J. and Wood, M., 1993. The globalisation of production and technology. London: Belhaven Press Malecki, E., 1997.technology & economic development. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Maskus, K., 2004. Encouraging international technology transfer [online]. Available at: http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/28200/1/Encouraging%20international%20technology%20transfer.pdf?1 [Accessed 25 February 2013]. Nezu, R., 2007. Technology transfer, intellectual property and effective university-industry partnerships [online]. Available at: http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/928/wipo_pub_928.pdf [Accessed 25 February 2013]. Popp, D., 2008. A perspective paper on technology transfers as a response to climate change [online]. Available at: http://fixtheclimate.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/PP_Technology_Transfers_Popp_v.2.0.pdf [Accessed 26 February 2013]. State Environmental Protection Administration, 2006. Report on the state of the environment in China [online]. Available at: http://english.mep.gov.cn/down_load/Documents/200710/P020071023479580153243.pdf [Accessed 26 February 2013]. Riedijk, W., 1987. Appropriate technology for developing countries. Netherlands: Delft University. Rosenberg, N., 1982. Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shamsavari, A., 1996. Simplicity and complexity: On the foundations of Marxs methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shamsavari, A., 2000. Marx and the Soviet economy, economics discussion papers. London: Kingston University Shamsavari, A., Adikibi, O. and Taha, Y., 2003. Technology and technology transfer. Kingston University [online]. Available at: http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/6629/1/Shamsavari-A-6629.pdf [Accessed 26 February 2013]. Singursaon, J., 1990. Measuring the dynamics of technological change. London: Francis Pinter, Stewart, F., 1978. Technology and underdevelopment. London: Macmillan. International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, 2012. Technology transfer and innovation: key country priorities for Rio+20. Geneva, Switzerland. Suppan, S., 2008. Patent policy and sustainable cellulosic biofuels development. Biofuels News. Swanson, T. and Goeschl, T., 2004. Pests, pathogens, and patent holders: Implications of biotechnologies for patent holders. North Carolina: Duke University. Taha, Y., 2002. Technology transfer by the multinational firm: The case of car industry in Egypt. London: Kingston University. Tybout, J., 2003. Plant and Firm Level Evidence on New Trade Theories," in E. Kwan Choi and James Harrigan, Handbook of International Trade. London: Blackwell. United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC), 1988. Transnational corporations in world development: trends and prospects. New York: UNCTAD. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 1991. Channels and mechanism for technology transfer. New York: UNCTAD. Souder, E., 1990. Technology transfer process stage. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 15(1-2). World Bank, 2001. Intellectual Property: Balancing Incentives with Competitive Access. Chapter 5 in Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries. Washington DC: The World Bank. Read More