Evolución de la autonomía del arbitraje comercial en Inglaterra y Estados Unidos

According to Rosenberg (1982), technology is a commodity, knowledge, or a socioeconomic process. Technology as a commodity can be reproduced and

transmitted from one to another. According to this view technology transfer is simple as making photocopy of designed documents. This view of technology has been supplanted by the view of technology as knowledge (Kranzberg, 1986; Sharif, 1995). Research and innovation bring this knowledge from invention to new products, processes and services in practical use. Rip and Kemp (1998) discussed technology in relation to climate change.

Technology transfer is most basically a complex process of learning (Levine, 1993; Kranzberg, 1986). Chen (1996) asserts that technology transfer is not achieved until the buyers understands and can utilize the technology. The ability of the buyers to choose and adapt the technology to the local socio-economic environment and raw materials could be a criterion for technology transfer. In lack of such capabilities to choose technology transfer could be inadequate, unsustainable, unsafe, or bad. On the other hand, perhaps cheaper technology and equipment transfer can take place. For example, inefficient refrigerators, used cars could be sold to the developing countries.

The tendency of public discourse does not help the understanding of technology transfer as it lumps science and technology together. One can benefit from the other, but need not to follow from the other. Often, technology development leads to scientific advance, which in turn may lead to new technology. Furthermore, modern technology is very much private or proprietary knowledge rather science as public knowledge (Ziman, 1968). Scientific knowledge is freely available to all that are scientifically literate private/proprietary knowledge is not. Technology as a knowledge travels from one place to another in a variety of ways. Dodgson and Bessant (1996) assert that the complex ways in that knowledge travels from

individual to individual and organisation-to-organisation brings up the first problem in effective technology transfer. It is significant to know that technology transfer depends on many persons as it is not only a patent or a piece of equipment transfer but also knowledge, process and practices.

According to Teubal et al. (1991) networks are significant for market formation because of their contribution to learning, particularly to the generation of an extensive social pool of knowledge associated to the capital good in question. Therefore it is also important to understand the complex networks through which those involved in technology transfer can interact. Archibugi and Michie (1997) also emphasize the learning method and the conditions that boost the learning capabilities of firms should be supported by technology policy. Different stakeholders

understand technology transfer in different ways such as governments and end-users need to understand the costs and benefits of a technology; innovators need to

understand how to adapt it; and firms need to understand how to market it and how it meets user needs (Appendix 2).

Technology transfer makes a number of people uncomfortable. Some criticise that there is an implied view of technology as an object, and its transfer is a one-time transaction that maintains the dependency of the buyer (Heaton et al., 1994). They suggested a new terminology, namely “technology cooperation” to substitute the view that technology can be transferred from one economic and cultural context to another in full-blown. Martinot et al. (1997) also favor the technology cooperation to technology transfer concept. The concept of technology diffusion to that of

technology transfer is favored by Grubler and Nakicenovic (1991) and others. According to the most of the people in this group, diffusion denotes a process of technological change brought about by discrete and uncoordinated decisions over time. Technology transfer has been seen as a two-way learning process, which might more suitably be called “technology communication” (Robinson, 1991).

Technology transfer is not just from the industrialised to the developing countries. Majority of the technology transfer at international level in fact takes place between industrialized countries. Increasingly, however, technology transfer also starts to take

place from developing to the developed or between developing countries mainly when it comes to the highly knowledgeable humanware.

Technology transfer is not a new phenomenon. It is the basis of human civilisation. Technology is transferred from parents to children, between neighbours and

community members from the very beginning of the human being evolution when people started to use hand tools to kill or catch animals or to pick up fruits. Those are all conventional technologies transferred to the next generation in a good will.

Transfer of modern technology however, is for competition and exploitation. It depends on many factors and the main motivation is economic benefits. The CDM is attempting to use this well-established mechanism which in many cases has not worked successfully for all people involved, and to turn it around by making it not only economically beneficial but also beneficial for the natural environment.

The concept of technology transfer was born in the industrial developed countries. After the Second World War many devastated countries boosted up their economic development through technology transfer and monetary assistance from the United States. Later on technology transfer was expanded from developed countries to developing nations all over the world. As money or financial resources has been the problem for most developing countries, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund provided them with loans to buy technology but they also imposed conditions for economic development through their prescription. With only few exceptions the technology sold by Europe and North America to the developing nations of Africa and Asia was obsolete and often outrageously priced (Sirolli, 1995). Cases like this are abundant in Bangladesh. For examples, the Dhaka Leather Complex was transferred by the Netherland’s fund in 1990s; Karnafully Fertiliser Company was established in late 1990s through the private sector. After coating with paint a number of items of the old machinery, the suppliers priced the leather complex’s machinery three to four times higher than its market price. The export-import agreement signed was totally one sided. Sirolli (1995) says that even before one piece of equipment reached its new destination, all the money was back in western coffers and some of it was hiding in Swiss bank accounts. Such technology transfer does not contribute to a fair and sustainable economic development and a different

approach needs to be taken. The CDM is attempting to achieve this but how exactly and what it means will be discussed later chapters three, four and five of this thesis.