Here is a good report about the absence of technology transfer. Ross, Michael. 2001. Extractive Sectors and the Poor: An Oxfam America Report (Boston: Oxfam America). <http://www.oxfamamerica.org/eireport/>
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:19:27PM -0800, Peter Dorman wrote: > > Is there anything else the mainstream has mentioned as a source of dynamic > > benefit to trade? I'm not sure that much empirical evidence supporting these > > claims have been offered. > > The main argument, at least for developed economies, seems to be the beneficial > effects of competition. LDCs are supposed to benefit from technology transfer. > There is a huge literature on this, which I haven't pretended to keep up with. > (Unlike the other literatures I do pretend to keep up with...) I've made a rather > different argument, that technology has become international in a sense that has > little historical precedent. The training of engineers, the types of equipment > used, and so on, has been largely standardized. Techniques bounce back and forth > in an almost frictionless way across borders. The division of labor in innovation > (the interconnected flow of process and product innovations) is also > international. Thus a high degree of openness is a precondition for participating > in the technologically advanced sectors of the economy. This is an inescapable > argument for a certain type of liberalization, although it doesn't follow that > unmanaged trade is a good idea, either nationally or globally. I sketched some of > the evidence for this view in an article I wrote several years ago, "Actually > Existing Globalization". > > > > > >We are really concerned with the effects of trade liberalization, > > >both in the narrow economic sense (macro instability for instance) > > >and the broader political-economic sense. > > > > I'm with you on that. > > > > However, I think a good argument can be made that institutional differences > > between countries can shape the pattern of trade. > > Yes, you've studied that, so I'll defer. But can your approach be distinguished > empirically from the neoclassical endowments-and-preferences model? > > > > > Eric > > Peter > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
